GOP Wins the Contest for Number of God References in their Platform

[d-ray657]

The Constitution permits reasonable time place and manner restrictions on religious exercise. If folks are actually impeding the flow of traffic, they can be required to find another place for prayers.

As far as public prayer, I always think of Jesus' admonition to the Pharisees about making a show of prayer. I tend to think of prayer as a private conversation, and not an opportunity to make a point with those around us.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The Constitution permits reasonable time place and manner restrictions on religious exercise. If folks are actually impeding the flow of traffic, they can be required to find another place for prayers.

But, Don, I think WG was trying to say that whether or not he'd be okay with it was dependent upon whose god was being prayed to.

John

[whell]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Why, then, does the word God not appear anywhere in the Constitution?

Also, why did they put this in the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, a treaty which was unanimously ratified by Congress and signed by President John Adams, one of the Nation's founders:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

No one is suggesting that the US Government is a theocracy. However, Treaty you reference settled a dispute between the US and theocratic regimes. To include language that religious opinions should not be the basis of future disputes was deemed a prudent political addition. Also, the US Constitution is a document that proscribes the mechanics of the Federal Government, so there's no need to mention "God" in such a document. Alternatively, I believe some relevance can be attached to the fact that the very first amendment to the constitution is the one that protects religious freedom.

But to use that language from the Treaty to negate the idea that human rights and freedoms flowed "from Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and that the authors of the Constitution ignored this idea when drafting the Constitution and other founding documents is a false notion. Whey else, then, does the Declaration make reference to "God", "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "divine Providence", etc., if these concepts were not relevant to the signatories of that document.

Also, if you want to focus on treaty language, may I refer you to the Treaty with Tunis in 1797, which contains the language which describes the President of the United States as:

"the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, of whom may the end be happy."

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The Constitution permits reasonable time place and manner restrictions on religious exercise.

Then why the heck couldn't anyone boot the Moonies out of the airports!!

[piece-itpete]

D heaven forbid the government dictates to us where and when we may profess our faith.

Interesting that freedom of religion, speech, and the press are considered as 1. If you think about it it makes perfect sense.

Also interesting, that clarifier in that treaty

The founders studiously avoided religion to keep favoratism out of government. But to say we weren't a Christian nation is, um, something.

Pete

[Wasillaguy]

I just find the whole blunder highly entertaining. Lots of minorities are very religious. Hispanics for example, love love love Catholicism.
How many votes were lost with this little awakening? Did you see the look on the poor guy's face? How many good Christian democrats across this country had that same look on their face?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

No one is suggesting that the US Government is a theocracy. However, Treaty you reference settled a dispute between the US and theocratic regimes. To include language that religious opinions should not be the basis of future disputes was deemed a prudent political addition. Also, the US Constitution is a document that proscribes the mechanics of the Federal Government, so there's no need to mention "God" in such a document. Alternatively, I believe some relevance can be attached to the fact that the very first amendment to the constitution is the one that protects religious freedom.

But to use that language from the Treaty to negate the idea that human rights and freedoms flowed "from Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", and that the authors of the Constitution ignored this idea when drafting the Constitution and other founding documents is a false notion. Whey else, then, does the Declaration make reference to "God", "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", "divine Providence", etc., if these concepts were not relevant to the signatories of that document.

Also, if you want to focus on treaty language, may I refer you to the Treaty with Tunis in 1797, which contains the language which describes the President of the United States as:

"the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, of whom may the end be happy."

The language is clear, Whell. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" means just what it says, ergo: we are not a "Christian nation" as is so tiresomely bandied about by the Fundies.

The First Amendment is there to ensure that no religious orthodoxy would be imposed upon the citizenry. A "Christian nation" would by definition require just such an orthodoxy or, at the very least, an official State religion.

The Declaration of Independence is not, in the strictest sense, a "founding document" of this country. Rather, it is a declaration of our intent to sever relations with the nation of which we were then a part.

The Treaty with the Bey of Tunis was ancillary to the Treaty of Tripoli, as Tunis was one of the Barbary States with which we were at war. The reference to the President was just that, a reference to the President: a person, not the country. We now have an African American president. Are we then an African American nation? God help us if he really is a Muslim!

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Then why the heck couldn't anyone boot the Moonies out of the airports!!

To be boringly precise about it, part of reasonable time place and manner restrictions is the concept of reasonable accommodation. I should also clarify my previous statement. The time place and manner restrictions many not be based on content. The restrictions from laying out mats in the middle of the sidewalk of street may be enforced because that physical act impedes the free flow of traffic. The same regulation would apply if the mats were spread out to sell DVD's, to demonstrate sweepers, or to have a picnic. While the spreading of the mats might not be permitted on the sidewalk, a reasonable accommodation would be to allow the practice to take place in a public square, in the park, or perhaps, even in the lobby of city hall.

Regards,

D-Ray

[ebacon]

I don't see why the modern right is so wrapped around the axle over the issue. It's not as if they are using their Bibles for legislative guidance anymore. They have the atheist Ayn Rand for that.

And as for the Democrats with their ridiculous nonsense about America not being founded in religion. Puh-lease. While they might not recognize the religion it certainly is there. Or was. It's called natural law, aka Laws of Nature or Nature's God as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Natural law has long been a part our jurisprudence and is practically indistinguishable from any major religion.

But no, Natural Law wasn't good enough. The Democrats, through the Clintons and Gore, introduced American jurisprudence to Ayn Rand's atheist bullshit of Money is God. They gave away American jobs with NAFTA, gave away Americans' savings with Gramm-Leach-Bliley, gave away the integrity of America's media system with the communications act of 1996, and said go forth and f*ck with each other in search of profits.

Now that they have opened Pandora's box and the right has grown to love it we are stuck with a mess. The Democrats have nothing to be proud of with regard the atheist makings of our quandry. Nothing.

A fundamental notion of Natural Law is that you can give away your own shit but not someone elses'. The Clintons and Gore didn't build that. The Greatest Generation did.

And what did we get for all of that atheist deregulation free market bullshit? Worldcomm debacle. Stock market collapse. Joblessness. Runaway trade deficits. Bankrupt municipalities. A divided national body politic that's run by ginormous assed networks instead of the states. Hell, if the Clinton/Gore team had been successful in arguing for energy deregulation then we could even thank them for Enron. But for the grace of God only atheist California took the bait and did it at a state level. Bush took the PR hit but it was the Clintons that beat the drum and persuaded energy deregulation to happen in California in 1996 and Enron milked them dry.

Grrrrr.

Moral relativism will be the death of us. It's no wonder we are at the bottom of civilized nations on corruption perceptions. We are even with powerhouses such as Uruguay and Chile. And who are we trusting as our new big trade partners? Russia and China. Their indices are equivalent to those of African nations such as Nigeria and Mozambique.

I guess trading with Europe and getting Ferraris, Guccis, Benzos, Beemers and the like wasn't enough.

And just like Ayn Rand predicted we are all so much safer now. And more free.

Balls.

And for the right, please stop it with the so************************m bullshit. Teamwork isn't so************************m. Some things are better left to pooled money. And take a serious look at the messes that unrestrained free-market capitalism can make. I've heard over and over again from rednecks that remember local banks and making deals on a handshake. That stuff happened with REGULATED BANKING!

We've gone mad. Maybe another bubble of strip malls and Starbucks will fix it.

I need to stop. I'm already climbing the ceiling.

[piece-itpete]

Conservatives shop at Starbucks?

Just kidding eb.

Pete