|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Not to be pedantic, but a federal court in California is not a California court. California courts are part of the judiciary of the State of California.
Another thing, of course the support for "In God We Trust" is religious. Look at the people freaking out about removing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
Not to be pedantic, but a federal court in California is not a California court. California courts are part of the judiciary of the State of California.
Another thing, of course the support for "In God We Trust" is religious. Look at the people freaking out about removing it. |
Yeah, I was a little confused when I read the OP due to the thread's title. The Federal Court of Appeals located in SF covers the West too, not just CA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newdow is a professional agitator, and I support any legal reasoning that results in ignoring his provocations.
But somewhat more seriously, yes the 'under God' is religious. But I'm still left wondering why I should care that it is. What religious agenda is the phrase advancing at the expense of the Republic? I recognize the religious nature of the phrase but fail to see the urgency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Newdow is a professional agitator, and I support any legal reasoning that results in ignoring his provocations. |
"To heck with facts" is what you're saying with this slur on the man.
| Quote: |
| But somewhat more seriously, yes the 'under God' is religious. |
Of course it is.
| Quote: |
| But I'm still left wondering why I should care that it is. |
There's this nifty little thing in America that's the foundation of the government. It's call the Constitution. Many people, and rightly so, care about that.
| Quote: |
| What religious agenda is the phrase advancing at the expense of the Republic? I recognize the religious nature of the phrase but fail to see the urgency. |
The religious agenda it's advancing is that it's establishing a state sponsorship of a religious belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I'm still left wondering why I should care that it is. |
There's this nifty little thing in America that's the foundation of the government. It's call the Constitution. Many people, and rightly so, care about that. |
Obnoxious.
I agree with the court, the words are of 'ceremonial and a patriotic nature.'
BTW, Newdow is the same guy who lost his lawsuit claiming that a religious invocation at George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration violated the Constitution. Apparently, Newdow has never heard of the Free Exercise Clause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I'm still left wondering why I should care that it is. |
There's this nifty little thing in America that's the foundation of the government. It's call the Constitution. Many people, and rightly so, care about that. |
Obnoxious. |
Nice violation of the site's Terms of Service there.
| Quote: |
| I agree with the court, the words are of 'ceremonial and a patriotic nature.' |
It's rather obvious that for a great many people ("the Religious Right," for example), the words are not merely ceremonial puffery but are important as a religious idea. And that's why those people are the ones freaking out about any chance the words will be dropped.
| Quote: |
| BTW, Newdow is the same guy who lost his lawsuit claiming that a religious invocation at George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration violated the Constitution. Apparently, Newdow has never heard of the Free Exercise Clause. |
That has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the issue of the motto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Quote: |
| But I'm still left wondering why I should care that it is. |
There's this nifty little thing in America that's the foundation of the government. It's call the Constitution. Many people, and rightly so, care about that. |
Obnoxious. |
Nice violation of the site's Terms of Service there. |
Your thesis is that your opinion agrees with the Constitution. Those that oppose it do not. That is an obnoxious formulation (and arrogant, besides). Saying so does not violate the TOS.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I agree with the court, the words are of 'ceremonial and a patriotic nature.' |
It's rather obvious that for a great many people ("the Religious Right," for example), the words are not merely ceremonial puffery but are important as a religious idea. And that's why those people are the ones freaking out about any chance the words will be dropped. |
Even so, the interpretations of a minority (especially when they are overzealous and inaccurate) do not a gov't establishment of religion make. What matters (in the absence of a coherent or consistent standard, which SCOTUS has historically lacked in this area) is what the gov't intended, and beyond that, the effect of the gov't's statements or actions. It seems to have a crusader like Michael Newdow worked up. And you, too. Not enough of an effect for me to conclude that those two words constitute an establishment of religion.
| Quote: |
Quote:
BTW, Newdow is the same guy who lost his lawsuit claiming that a religious invocation at George W. Bush's 2001 inauguration violated the Constitution. Apparently, Newdow has never heard of the Free Exercise Clause.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the issue of the motto. |
And yet, I typed it anyway. Fancy that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Street Magic wrote: |
What makes you think I had a particular agenda to stick to? Why would you think I would be trying to make a point opposite to what I actually wrote? I looked up the relevant case to answer my question and responded by saying exactly what it said.
To put it more clearly, I asked a question, you assumed that meant I was taking a side against you when I wasn't, and then I answered my own question in favor of your "side."
You need to go back and read my last post more carefully, without the "Everyone's always on a particular team" mentality. |
I think this is a case of internet-misunderstanding. I didn't mean to create an "us-vs-them" division between us by labelling you with an agenda, and I certainly didn't mean to deride you. I apologize for offending you. That was not at all my intention.
| Quote: |
| What? Did you read what I wrote? I said it could be used as a basis for disputing the notion that "God" was vague enough not to be a violation of the 1st's Separation clause. |
This is how I read and understood what you wrote:
Apparently Engel v. Vitale ruled nondenominational prayer in public school unconstitutional. That could be used as a basis for disputing the notion that "God" is too vague to cater to any one particular denomination of religious belief.
This looked like an argument that nondenominational prayer and ONLY nondenominational prayer was challenged and found unconstitutional. Also, disputing the notion that "God" is too vague to cater to any one particular denomination of religious belief sounded like the basis for an argument in favor of ruling "In God We Trust" non-religious. This interpretation of your post led me to point out the even if quote from your link.
Again, I'm sorry that my post seemed offensive; I didn't mean it to be taken that way. And if I've again misunderstood your initial post, please correct me.
| bacasper wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the assertion that something with God (that's a big G, mind you) stamped on it isn't religious in nature. |
I can believe in the big, capital-G God without adhering to any particular sect. |
Yes, you can. However, your belief in capital JEE-oh-dee is still exclusionary. Among many others, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, totemism, etc cannot be covered under the blanket of "God," neither can atheism and agnosticism. Being that all of these belief systems are excluded based on their religious nature, invoking a literal belief or trust in "God" is always religious.
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Not to be pedantic, but a federal court in California is not a California court. California courts are part of the judiciary of the State of California. |
I wanted to write the title of the thread the same as the title of the article, however I couldn't because of the character limit. Being that it is an appeals court located in California, I think California Appeals Court is close enough.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Even so, the interpretations of a minority (especially when they are overzealous and inaccurate) do not a gov't establishment of religion make. What matters (in the absence of a coherent or consistent standard, which SCOTUS has historically lacked in this area) is what the gov't intended, and beyond that, the effect of the gov't's statements or actions. It seems to have a crusader like Michael Newdow worked up. And you, too. Not enough of an effect for me to conclude that those two words constitute an establishment of religion. |
Here's a quote from a letter U.S. Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase sent to the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, requesting a change in the motto printed on U.S. currency:
| Quote: |
| Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. |
Can you interpret that to be anything other than religious? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the assertion that something with God (that's a big G, mind you) stamped on it isn't religious in nature. |
I can believe in the big, capital-G God without adhering to any particular sect. |
Yes, you can. However, your belief in capital JEE-oh-dee is still exclusionary. Among many others, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, totemism, etc cannot be covered under the blanket of "God," neither can atheism and agnosticism. Being that all of these belief systems are excluded based on their religious nature, invoking a literal belief or trust in "God" is always religious. |
My definition of "God" is love. All those religions believe in love. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I'd love to hear the reasoning behind the assertion that something with God (that's a big G, mind you) stamped on it isn't religious in nature. |
I can believe in the big, capital-G God without adhering to any particular sect. |
Yes, you can. However, your belief in capital JEE-oh-dee is still exclusionary. Among many others, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, totemism, etc cannot be covered under the blanket of "God," neither can atheism and agnosticism. Being that all of these belief systems are excluded based on their religious nature, invoking a literal belief or trust in "God" is always religious. |
My definition of "God" is love. All those religions believe in love. |
Among the religious belief systems I listed, only one sect from one of those systems has a particular religious belief connected to love and the supernatural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
Here's a quote from a letter U.S. Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase sent to the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, requesting a change in the motto printed on U.S. currency:
| Quote: |
| Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. |
Can you interpret that to be anything other than religious? |
I'm with you on 'In God we trust.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I take that back; I also recall one sect from Buddhism that is also primarily devotional (read: concerned primarily with the relationship between love and the supernatural), but I can't remember the name.
So make that two sects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Street Magic
Joined: 23 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I think this is a case of internet-misunderstanding. I didn't mean to create an "us-vs-them" division between us by labelling you with an agenda, and I certainly didn't mean to deride you. I apologize for offending you. That was not at all my intention. |
My bad for overreacting.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
This is how I read and understood what you wrote:
Apparently Engel v. Vitale ruled nondenominational prayer in public school unconstitutional. That could be used as a basis for disputing the notion that "God" is too vague to cater to any one particular denomination of religious belief.
This looked like an argument that nondenominational prayer and ONLY nondenominational prayer was challenged and found unconstitutional. Also, disputing the notion that "God" is too vague to cater to any one particular denomination of religious belief sounded like the basis for an argument in favor of ruling "In God We Trust" non-religious. This interpretation of your post led me to point out the even if quote from your link.
Again, I'm sorry that my post seemed offensive; I didn't mean it to be taken that way. And if I've again misunderstood your initial post, please correct me. |
Yeah, I italicized "nondenominational" because I wanted to emphasize the relevance to what I was asking before. My question was whether the lack of denominational specificity would exempt something like the term "God" from the separation of church and state. With that case I cited, I found that the answer was a very clear "no" precisely because the case ruled against nondenominational prayer in public school rather than against prayer for one particular sect of Christianity or something.
And the notion that "God" is too vague to cater to any one particular religious belief was another reference to the suggestion/question I was raising earlier. When you just look at the particular line, "the notion that 'God' is too vague to cater to any one particular religious belief," you get the argument for "God" to continue to appear on money. That's why I said the case was "disputing" that argument. A clearer rephrasing of the whole thing might be:
"The case ruled against religious ideas, regardless of denomination, mixing with the state. This rules out the possibility that a lack of denomination could justify 'God' on money."
Long story short, I think there's a pretty solid precedent against "God" on money given how explicitly that one case ruled against nondenominational prayer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suwonteacher
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Hwaesodong
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whatever happened to separation of church and state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| suwonteacher wrote: |
| Whatever happened to separation of church and state? |
Blatantly urinated on back in the 1950s' "Red Scare" because "Those commies are godless!" Let's check out the original Pledge of Allegiance, shall we?
| Quote: |
| I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. |
Not a mention of deity there at all. Read the rest of the wiki article for some rather interesting decisions and the dates said decisions were reached.
Of course, the ACLU catches grief for assisting those who fight for separation of church and state, even when those fighters happen to be religious.
More fun stuff for you. South Korea's constitution explicitily states in Article 20 that there is a separation of church and state, yet their national anthem implores "God protect and preserve [the] nation." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
