Separation of Church and State

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Seagoon




And yet we seem to have forgotten the portions of our foundational documents that protect the free exercise of religion. We see that in the way that we are told that judges, for instance, are disqualified from serving as judges because of (to quote Chuck Schumer) "deeply held conservative religious views." What better example do we have of a man's religious beliefs being held to "diminish his civil capacity?" We have gone from protecting freedom of religion to enforcing freedom from Christian religion.

95% of Bush judicial appointees have passed. That is a pretty good percent.  Maybe if the judicial appointee would be neutral he might get his job. But instead you have these judges who strongly voice their "deeply held conservative religious views" and it does not make them look impartial. After all lady justice is blind not religous.

[bustr]

Jefferson gave substance to his beleif with his Bill that each man has the freedom to worship or not worship as he chooses, and that the state nor his fellow man can compell him otherwise in any means. This is a natural right of mankind.

Congress providing funding to faith based groups for public releif works is not compelling anyone to follow those groups theology. You might as well go the next extream step and say no U.S. citizen who is a member of a recognised Christian faith will ever be eligible for any form of federal asisstance unless first they publicly renounce their faith. But then that just means they become converts to the State Religion of secularism.

If you do not agree with what Congress is doing, you as a member of We the People are free to associate with like minded citizens and elect officials who beleive as you do. Congress only has the power to make or unmake Law.

The apperance of impropriety is not the substance of reality.  Raider I think you would have felt quite at home in Paris of 1789.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Raider179
Thats just not true.  

Google "Bible study group denied access" and these come up...
---------------------------
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union School District held that a local school board's policy allowing use of school property after hours for a variety of purposes but prohibiting access for a religious use was a violation of the free speech clause.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit to hold that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause neither required nor justified such discrimination against religious speech. Nevertheless the Second Circuit again upheld a New York City School District's denial of access to a middle school auditorium sought by a church for worship services on Sunday mornings even though the schools are open to a wide variety of other public uses.

In 1997, Oklahoma University removed the website for a group of Christian faculty members from the University web server. While the university generally gives campus groups the opportunity to include their website on the university's server, this benefit has been denied to a Christian group.

That same year public school officials in North Carolina supported a teacher who forbid two students from bringing their Bibles to class and banned an informal discussion of Bible-related topics during non-class time.

PHILADELPHIA — 2003 A western Pennsylvania high school was wrong to bar a student Bible club from meeting during an activity period before the start of daily classes, a federal appeals court said yesterday.

The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a belated victory for Punxsutawney Area High School senior Melissa Donovan, who sued last year after the district said it would no longer allow her biblical study group, FISH, to meet once school had started at 8 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------

My point is that the administration of policies is often too narrow in restricting religion in public forums.  

Even though as early as 1993 the Supreme Court has upheld religious groups right to access public facilities the restrictions keep coming up and the courts have to keep deciding that freedom of religion had some merit.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Raider179
95% of Bush judicial appointees have passed. That is a pretty good percent.

Raider,

I hate to play the Family Feud buzzer sound but... BZZZZT

Here are the actual statistics:

President     Confirmation Percentage, 1st & 2nd Congress
Truman                     90.9%
Eisenhower          88.5%
Johnson             97.0%
Nixon                       92.7%
Ford                        79.2%
Carter                       91.8%
Reagan                    78.6%
G.H.W. Bush          77.8%
Clinton               71.4%
G.W. Bush            52.2%

Here is the US Gov't Source for the above stats

 Maybe if the judicial appointee would be neutral he might get his job. But instead you have these judges who strongly voice their "deeply held conservative religious views" and it does not make them look impartial. After all lady justice is blind not religous.  

Be neutral? Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsberg neutral about anything? She's been a torch carrier all her life for the ACLU and a vocal advocate for left wing causes including unrestricted abortion on demand and yet she was confirmed without much fuss. Why by contrast must Christian conservatives keep their own value system under the bed like pornography and only discuss it behind closed doors.

Your "no voicing religious views" point only serves to confirm what I was saying about how we no longer believe in Jefferson's phrase "nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

We may only "strongly express" points of view and expect to be confirmed if they follow the accepted civil religion otherwise they are disqualified. Even if they don't strongly express them, the Senate Digging crews will diligently unearth them. Voltaire and Rousseau appear to be strongly preferred to Jefferson, Mason, and Madison these days.

-  SEAGOON

[midnight Target]

Seagoon.. I read your link. The numbers I saw were a little different:

Truman - 75.1%
Eisenhower - 85.9%
Kennedy - 84.9%
Johnson - 91.5%
Nixon - 97.9% ( )
Ford - 82.4%

Nothing past 1976?

[bustr]

Raider,.........what great harm has the christian religion enacted upon you or that you fear it will perform upon this nation under the mantel of legislative fiat? I am by no means Seagoon in my background, but it's beyond obvious your vitrol towards followers of the christian faith in the public arena and possibly in private.

I'm confused about the motivation of your vitrol...........

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Raider,

I hate to play the Family Feud buzzer sound but... BZZZZT

Here are the actual statistics:

President     Confirmation Percentage, 1st & 2nd Congress
Truman                     90.9%
Eisenhower          88.5%
Johnson             97.0%
Nixon                       92.7%
Ford                        79.2%
Carter                       91.8%
Reagan                    78.6%
G.H.W. Bush          77.8%
Clinton               71.4%
G.W. Bush            52.2%

Here is the US Gov't Source for the above stats



Be neutral? Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsberg neutral about anything? She's been a torch carrier all her life for the ACLU and a vocal advocate for left wing causes including unrestricted abortion on demand and yet she was confirmed without much fuss. Why by contrast must Christian conservatives keep their own value system under the bed like pornography and only discuss it behind closed doors.

Your "no voicing religious views" point only serves to confirm what I was saying about how we no longer believe in Jefferson's phrase "nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

We may only "strongly express" points of view and expect to be confirmed if they follow the accepted civil religion otherwise they are disqualified. Even if they don't strongly express them, the Senate Digging crews will diligently unearth them. Voltaire and Rousseau appear to be strongly preferred to Jefferson, Mason, and Madison these days.

-  SEAGOON

No problem sounding the buzzer but please check your facts first.

Nice manipulation of the statistics but you purposely left out a lot.

and please next time use the actual link you got info from. The link you gave does not show the stats you used.


Lets look at bush compared to clinton for a real view on it.

Clinton 106 nominations 65 confirmed 3 withdrawn and 38 returned

Bush 66 nominations 35 returned 1 withdrawn and 31 returned.

now as you can clearly see Bush is just about right on par with clinton except in the "returned" factor. Which you just lumped in there with rejected, when in fact it was the republican controlled  senate which "returned the nomination to the president upon adjournment or recess for 30 days."

Here is the rule regarding returned nominations

Senate standing rule:

“If the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”

So the president didn't offer them back after the recess. you want to blame that on the senators or the president? You can't lump all those in when they never went through the process.

As for the neutrality thing, You name ginsberg but then go off on abortion, aclu,  but see you are missing the point that she doesn't go off on her religious views.

Christian conservatives do not have to hide it under their beds but if you hold office respect the dignity of the office and practice your faith by yourself. After all you are leading people not just christians. Its a thing called respect for others religious beliefs.

Please, You think your religious views are being trampled on. How? Where can you personally not express your views? Name one place. Where can you personally not pray? name one place
 And I don't mean that out loud raising cain praying, I mean silent say a few words to god prayer. Tell me that they won't let you do that in a school.

[midnight Target]

Oh.. this is getting good...

here is another set of numbers:

Truman -  81.8%
Eisenhower - 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson - 89.7%
Nixon/Ford - 89.1%  
Carter - 91.8%
Reagan - 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush - 77.8%
Clinton - 61.3%
G.W. Bush - 53.0%
 from http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983

Accept any group of numbers you like, but the bottom line is that the real politicization of the process started with or should I say against the Clinton Administration.

Maybe the real issue is this:

 

In 2001 George W. Bush eliminated the longstanding role of the American Bar Association (ABA) in the evaluation of prospective federal judges. ABA’s judicial ratings had long kept extremists from the right and left, off the bench. In its place, Bush has been using The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies—a national organization whose mission is to advance a conservative agenda by moving the country’s legal system to the right.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/7.html

[Raider179]

Originally posted by bustr
Raider,.........what great harm has the christian religion enacted upon you or that you fear it will perform upon this nation under the mantel of legislative fiat? I am by no means Seagoon in my background, but it's beyond obvious your vitrol towards followers of the christian faith in the public arena and possibly in private.

I'm confused about the motivation of your vitrol...........

My motivation is to provide a counterbalance to what I see as the beginning of the religious exploitation of America. I am by no means up on Seagoon's level either when it comes to the background. I do however find religion an interesting and maybe the most mentally challenging topic to debate. I am well versed in many parts of the Torah, Bible, and the Qu'ran thanks to college.

After examing all 3 religions it is obvious that they are all just used to keep the masses in check.(opiate of the masses)  I do not believe in organized religion. I don't think you need a book, or a preist, or a mosque or anything material to talk to God. He hears you. I do however grasp that some people need religion. It makes it so they don't really have to take responsibility for a lot that happens in life. Not too mention it but organized religion is very intolerant. You go to hell if you don't think like they do. Sorry but my God has a little more compassion than that. He takes people based on the merits of their life not their submission to him.

Get the torches I can feel it gettin toasty round here. lol
hope no one got offended.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Google "Bible study group denied access" and these come up...
---------------------------
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union School District held that a local school board's policy allowing use of school property after hours for a variety of purposes but prohibiting access for a religious use was a violation of the free speech clause.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit to hold that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause neither required nor justified such discrimination against religious speech. Nevertheless the Second Circuit again upheld a New York City School District's denial of access to a middle school auditorium sought by a church for worship services on Sunday mornings even though the schools are open to a wide variety of other public uses.

In 1997, Oklahoma University removed the website for a group of Christian faculty members from the University web server. While the university generally gives campus groups the opportunity to include their website on the university's server, this benefit has been denied to a Christian group.

That same year public school officials in North Carolina supported a teacher who forbid two students from bringing their Bibles to class and banned an informal discussion of Bible-related topics during non-class time.

PHILADELPHIA — 2003 A western Pennsylvania high school was wrong to bar a student Bible club from meeting during an activity period before the start of daily classes, a federal appeals court said yesterday.

The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a belated victory for Punxsutawney Area High School senior Melissa Donovan, who sued last year after the district said it would no longer allow her biblical study group, FISH, to meet once school had started at 8 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------

My point is that the administration of policies is often too narrow in restricting religion in public forums.  

Even though as early as 1993 the Supreme Court has upheld religious groups right to access public facilities the restrictions keep coming up and the courts have to keep deciding that freedom of religion had some merit.

Like I said link please... Seagoon and I got into this exact debate awhile back and he posted something like 10 cases and in everyone of them but 1 they had violated the rules somewhere.

I am not gonna go looking for  these cases, if you link to one I will happily look at

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon.. I read your link. The numbers I saw were a little different:

Truman - 75.1%
Eisenhower - 85.9%
Kennedy - 84.9%
Johnson - 91.5%
Nixon - 97.9% ( )
Ford - 82.4%

Nothing past 1976?

Whoops, Sorry Midnight Target, I thought I posted the second set of stats: 1977-2003
My bad.

The final stats are the final numbers from both studies for Judicial appointments during the first and second Congresses as provided by The Economist, a British magazine (which is where I first read the numbers). Here is there actual graphic from an article on the subject:
 

I'm no mathematician, but even an idiot like me can review the second set of official stats and easily come to the conclusion that Bush's #'s are the lowest of all of them...

- SEAGOON

[Raider179]

It all started to slide with Clinton. So maybe this is retribution for republicans doing it to Clinton. I will not withdraw my 90% claim as bush has so many returned nominees that he is not sending back to the Senate he can only blame himself for his low numbers.

[bustr]

The First Amendment protects all citizens whether in ellected office or private practice. When you become president, you do not take a vow to renounce your rights proteced by the constitution because someone may be offended by your beleifs. Your supporters elected you to office because of their faith in you and all that it means to be you.  

How does the dignity of the office superceed the Rights protected by the constitution? Freedom of Speech is protected, and freedom of concience, well is granted by the creator. The dignity of the office is what ever the holder makes it. Clinton got quickies, Bush prays to the Creator.

Prayer in school was one of those hidden 1000 lines of text not in the first line of the First Amendment just like there is no amendment concerning education in the first place. It gets back to the funding issue so the federal government could impose those hidden 1000 lines of text. Education is a state concern. The constitution has no provision for the federal government to fund primary education. The 1965 ESEA Act allowed them to stick their nose under the tent so to say. Congress enacting a Law which has a side effect of imposing secularism on children in grades 1-12 and punishing by Law any open manifistations of christianity in public. Oh my mistake, in federaly controled space.

So the reverse to whispering your prayer is you don't listen. Both are equaly valid solutions. There are no hidden lines of text in the constitution protecting your right to not be offended.

[Seagoon]

Hi Raider,

[Regarding the numbers: See my post to MT and his reply for a substantiation of the stats. Raider, The "returned" pile is valid because these picks die in committee. That's the whole point, they never make it to the floor for an up or down vote especially because of the threat of fillibusters if they ever do - that's the whole matter of the current fight, its over whether or not they will ever have the chance to be voted on. Regardless, no matter how you boil the stats they certainly are nowhere near the 95% you proposed]

Now on to your post:

Originally posted by Raider179
As for the neutrality thing, You name ginsberg but then go off on abortion, aclu,  but see you are missing the point that she doesn't go off on her religious views.

Christian conservatives do not have to hide it under their beds but if you hold office respect the dignity of the office and practice your faith by yourself. After all you are leading people not just christians. Its a thing called respect for others religious beliefs.

Raider, those are her religious beliefs. She has a worldview, she holds many beliefs by faith, for instance, that the world will be a better place if people have unrestricted access to abortion. Her belief system happens to be called liberal secular humanism, this doesn't however make it any less of a system of beliefs than Islam, Xorastrianism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. Secular Humanism, as much as modern Secular Humanists wish to deny it, is a faith. Even the Philosophes recognized that it was in fact a civil religion. It has its own dogmas, morals, organizations, sacred books, holidays, and teachers.

Personally, I find it to be one of the least credible and most intolerant of rivals of the world religions but I'm not going to deny your right or Ginsberg's to practice and espouse it freely.

Please, You think your religious views are being trampled on. How? Where can you personally not express your views? Name one place. Where can you personally not pray? name one place
 And I don't mean that out loud raising cain praying, I mean silent say a few words to god prayer. Tell me that they won't let you do that in a school.

 

Raider, under the system you frame above, Christians were free to pray in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, oh as long as they never did so audibly... That's religious freedom???

How would it be if I told you that your freedom of speech meant that you could think of any dissenting opinions you want to, as long as you never speak or publish them.

"Raider, you are free to come to the town hall meeting on the location of the new city dump in your backyard. We will be loudly proclaiming our support of the project, and using banners, displays, marching bands and presentations. You may of course freely express yourself on the matter as  well. Just as long as such expression remains silent and unobserved! Hey it's a free country."

- SEAGOON

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said link please... Seagoon and I got into this exact debate awhile back and he posted something like 10 cases and in everyone of them but 1 they had violated the rules somewhere.

I am not gonna go looking for  these cases, if you link to one I will happily look at

Translation:  Please deliver me from ignorance, I am to lazy to do it myself.

I find it amazing, that even I as an agnostic can see the intolerance towards religion of the secular world that is just as bad as the intolerance for alternate religious belief among those who are god fearing.