worth thinking about
 

wrote in message
nor any prohibition against,
for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings.

and then

"Larry L" wrote in message
Again, fwiw, I think 'social liberals' have way, way, overcooked many of
their issues, including prayer in schools and religious symbols in public
places.

There are few issues more inaccurately portrayed those of prayer in schools
and religious symbols. Religious extremists and conservative politicians
have gleefully, and with great effect, promoted those misperceptions to the
point, it seems, that nearly everyone believe them. To bust probably the
most pervasive myth, let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or
to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a
problem when the government requires it. Contrary to the hyperbole whipped
up by Christian religious fervor, the Constitution actually guarantees that
right to pray, not prevents it. It's all right here, "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof." It's that simple.

The undeniability is that this country is predominantly Christian, so any
law that prevents state sponsorship of religion is perceived as
anti-Christian and, by extension, anti-God and anti-religion. "Those durned
libruls want us to be a godless society." Nothing could be farther from the
truth, yet conservatives and preachers spout this bull**** every day to
their millions of sheep, and before you can say "founding fathers", it's the
prevailing paradigm.

As is my test for fairness for most issues, I look at it as if the tables
were turned. Suppose some Christian family's little child were in a
classroom where the teacher, or even the state school system, required that
Muslim prayers be recited every morning by every child. The Christian
family would not like it and could and would challenge it on Constitutional
grounds. Suppose the courthouse in their hometown wanted to erect a
monument of the Koran in front so that every visitor to this government
building had to pass by it. Would the Christian family like it? Hell no,
but they squealed bloody murder when teacher-lead Christian prayer was
outlawed, and those echoes are still heard today.

Yet there seems to be the feeling that if 99.99% of a population is
Christian, that population gets to **** on the Constitution and to hell with
that unfortunate .01% who aren't the "right" religion. And make no mistake
about it, the protection of the rights of that .01% is an extremely
difficult political fight, because if you win, you have the support of .01%
of the electorate, hardly enough to win re-election. That's why most of the
fight is in the courts, because politicians of either party aren't going to
stand up for the civil rights of Muslims these days. That's also why
institutions like the ACLU and AU are so important, and so reviled.
Christian America doesn't like having their noses rubbed in the 1st
Amendment.

So have we liberals "overcooked" the issue? I disagree. The separation of
government policies from religious dogma is of primary importance in this
country, and one that is under constant attack. Some of the battles can be
monumental, some seem trivial; but it is impossible to overstate the
importance of each one.

Joe F.

worth thinking about
 

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:37:12 GMT, rw
wrote:

wrote:

So-called (modern) conservatives generally champion laws that don't
offend the Constitution but can, and often do, offend the individual,
whereas so-called (modern) liberals generally champion laws that make
particular individuals feel great but offend the Constitution. As
examples, guns (because the 2nd is clear and combined with legislative
intent, it is ironclad), most "recreational" drugs, and abortion
(because the Constitution is silent directly on-point) should be
legislated, not controlled by the Supreme Court. IMO, they should be
Federally legal, with caveats, generally without input from or notice by
the Supreme Court (form of law excepted, should the case arise) - malum
prohibitum vs malum in se, unless the former crosses the line in such a
way that the latter would be a foreseeable result, i.e., drunk driving
in an unsafe (and uninsured, just to get it all messy) vehicle. OTOH, a
lot of what is put forth a "free" press and a separation of church
and state is just plain wrong - as examples, there is no language, and
no intent, to allow the press to run amok, nor any prohibition against,
for example, prayer in schools or religious symbols at public buildings.

Conservatives (so-called) are continually whining about liberal activist
Supreme Court justices, but they don't bother to define what "activist"
means.

Well, as long as it's not some goofy system, like going by their shoe
size times the square of their Kreh number or something...

A reasonably objective and quantifiable measure of a judge's activism
can be had with this question:

How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?

Oh, this ought to be good....

Here are the numbers:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush the First, is the most
activist. Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is the least activist.

Thomas and Breyer stand about as much chance of being labeled as
all-time great SCOTUS justices as you do...

The clear pattern is that the judges considered to be "conservative" are
most activist than those considered to be "liberal".

It that what's clear to you? Man, I'd love to be in the room when they
give you a Rorschach...here's a hint: none of the blots are supposed to
be Hillary's penis...

What conservatives really mean by "activists" is that some judges don't
decide cases according to right-wing ideology.

Uh, huh...and explain Ginsburg at 40%...

worth thinking about
 

rb608 wrote:

let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or
to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a
problem when the government requires it.

I'm in complete agreement with you, Joe, but I want to clarify
something. The government not only cannot REQUIRE prayer in schools --
it cannot SANCTION it. For example, it is not permissible for a public
school to conduct organized prayer even if they allow students to
decline to participate. The Supreme Court has been clear about this,
although with our two recently appointed justices that could change.

I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, "In
God we Trust" removed from coins, the bible removed from swearing-in
ceremonies, etc., but there are bigger Constitutional abuses to worry
about at the moment.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

worth thinking about
 

worth thinking about
 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:38:53 GMT, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:37:12 GMT, rw
wrote:

Here are the numbers:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Clarence Thomas, appointed by President Bush the First, is the most
activist. Stephen Breyer, appointed by Clinton, is the least activist.


Thomas and Breyer stand about as much chance of being labeled as
all-time great SCOTUS justices as you do...

Stupid and arrogant is a bad combination.

Well, duh...that's among the long list of reasons why you'll never be a
great SC justice...

worth thinking about
 

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 15:35:38 GMT, rw
wrote:

rb608 wrote:

let's make it clear: it is legal to pray in school. Or
to use the negative, it is not illegal to pray in school. It only becomes a
problem when the government requires it.

I'm in complete agreement with you, Joe, but I want to clarify
something. The government not only cannot REQUIRE prayer in schools --
it cannot SANCTION it. For example, it is not permissible for a public
school to conduct organized prayer even if they allow students to
decline to participate. The Supreme Court has been clear about this,
although with our two recently appointed justices that could change.

And just what do you think they meant, on that Fifteenth Day of December
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety one, when
they said, right out of the starting gate, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof..."

I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, "In
God we Trust" removed from coins, the bible removed from swearing-in
ceremonies, etc., but there are bigger Constitutional abuses to worry
about at the moment.

Well, shoot, boy, if you weren't so stupid and arrogant, maybe you could
get up there and straighten it all out...

worth thinking about
 

worth thinking about
 

Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...

I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.


That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet
doesn't say anything.

While I disagree with most of what each of them say, it's obvious that
they believe what they say. You are just playing some silly game.
My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.

worth thinking about
 

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..

My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.

You guess wrong

worth thinking about
 

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
. ..
Wolfgang wrote:

"Joe Smith" wrote in message
...

I believe that RDean and Ken, while abusive, do actually believe what
they spout.


That's pretty funny. Kennie doesn't believe in anything......and dicklet
doesn't say anything.

While I disagree with most of what each of them say,

And who do you suppose gives a ****?

it's obvious that they believe what they say.

Kennie doesn't believe in anything.......and dicklet doesn't say anything.

You are just playing some silly game.

You're a dumbass.

My guess is because in the real world no one wants anything to do
with you.

Husband those guesses......they're all you've got.

Wolfgang