Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61

Thread: Should Presiding Judges be allowed to preach their Religion in the Courtroom?

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I don't feel like a blind visit to a website, can you tell me what it is about, and with what authority it speaks?
    I mean, you did say 'proper' notion of CSS, which implies, at least to me, that the founfing fathers meant a particular thing, or the SCOTUS descision, or something official to coincide with your claim of 'proper.'
    Is this Federalist Paper grounded, or what?
    My use of “proper” was meant as “not skewed.” For instance, the analysis of a label used to reference an idea will likely be faulty if the label doesn’t capture every nuance of what’s being labeled. Do you really think that the separation of church and state is to be taken so literally that each church in the nation must be torn down? After all, if we’re going to separate church and state, how else if not to demolish every church within a nation? That’s absurd, of course, just as absurd as a judge saying to a recently sentenced to death criminal “may God have mercy on your soul” as being relevant to the issue referenced by the verbiage “separation of church and state.”

    I don’t rightly know what the full scope is or the boundaries delineating sufficient separation. I’d just like to think that there’s room for self-expression even when carrying out governmental duties.

  2. Top | #22
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I don't feel like a blind visit to a website, can you tell me what it is about, and with what authority it speaks?
    I mean, you did say 'proper' notion of CSS, which implies, at least to me, that the founfing fathers meant a particular thing, or the SCOTUS descision, or something official to coincide with your claim of 'proper.'
    Is this Federalist Paper grounded, or what?
    My use of “proper” was meant as “not skewed.”
    whuch implies a base heading we have strayed from.
    For instance, the analysis of a label used to reference an idea will likely be faulty if the label doesn’t capture every nuance of what’s being labeled. Do you really think that the separation of church and state is to be taken so literally that each church in the nation must be torn down?
    just those that refuse to follow the law.
    After all, if we’re going to separate church and state, how else if not to demolish every church within a nation? That’s absurd, of course, just as absurd as a judge saying to a recently sentenced to death criminal “may God have mercy on your soul” as being relevant to the issue referenced by the verbiage “separation of church and state.”
    But that's his expression after te sentencing, nit part of it.
    I don’t rightly know what the full scope is or the boundaries delineating sufficient separation. I’d just like to think that there’s room for self-expression even when carrying out governmental duties.
    Oh. So, you just dislike the current interpretation.





    I thought you had a point.

  3. Top | #23
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    My use of “proper” was meant as “not skewed.”
    whuch implies a base heading we have strayed from.
    For instance, the analysis of a label used to reference an idea will likely be faulty if the label doesn’t capture every nuance of what’s being labeled. Do you really think that the separation of church and state is to be taken so literally that each church in the nation must be torn down?
    just those that refuse to follow the law.
    After all, if we’re going to separate church and state, how else if not to demolish every church within a nation? That’s absurd, of course, just as absurd as a judge saying to a recently sentenced to death criminal “may God have mercy on your soul” as being relevant to the issue referenced by the verbiage “separation of church and state.”
    But that's his expression after te sentencing, nit part of it.
    I don’t rightly know what the full scope is or the boundaries delineating sufficient separation. I’d just like to think that there’s room for self-expression even when carrying out governmental duties.
    Oh. So, you just dislike the current interpretation.





    I thought you had a point.
    Current interpretation?

    What might that be anyway? The words “separation of church and state” doesn’t even show up in the constitution. There’s something written that’s in the constitution, but it ain’t that. You can interpret what’s in the constitution; that would be fine, but don’t interpret what we’re talking about and imbue what’s in the constitution as being the current interpretation. It takes understanding—not an analysis of a noun phrase that doesn’t even show up.

  4. Top | #24
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,606
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    The very first CSS lawsuit was started by Catholics. Their kids were praying in school and they wanted it stopped.
    It was a Baptist prayer.

    The court upheld that the free practice of their religion meant that they had to be protected from a different religion. No person has a right to make anyone else live by their religion. It's infringing on a fairly important freedom. Top ten, even.

    I wouldn't even want a Christain judge telling Hovind that the tax-dodging, science-illiterate, scammer is a poor excuse for a Christain. He is, but that's not the reason we put judges on the benches.
    This.

  5. Top | #25
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,606
    Rep Power
    6
    The article fast linked starts out saying the phrase "separation of church and state" has no legal basis, and was designed to eliminate Christianity.
    The irony of this is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the legal basis for "separation", and that it was promoted BY Christianity to protect it from its own various sects that sought to use the government to gain power over other Christian sects.

    I think it's hilarious, actually, that they got caught in their own petard.

    You can't tell me what to do!
    OK. Then you can't tell ME what to do.
    Oh shit!

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    9,595
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,039
    Rep Power
    70
    Any public official who does this should be forced to attend a religious ceremony of the religion they most dislike.

  7. Top | #27
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,851
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,603
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Any public official who does this should be forced to attend a religious ceremony of the religion they most dislike.
    The problem is you need to make them actually listen.

    Perhaps they have to answer some questions afterwards--miss them and you have to do it again.

  8. Top | #28
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    The article fast linked starts out saying the phrase "separation of church and state" has no legal basis, and was designed to eliminate Christianity.
    The irony of this is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the legal basis for "separation", and that it was promoted BY Christianity to protect it from its own various sects that sought to use the government to gain power over other Christian sects.

    I think it's hilarious, actually, that they got caught in their own petard.

    You can't tell me what to do!
    OK. Then you can't tell ME what to do.
    Oh shit!
    My point has been limited to the notion that there are dangers in analysing a generalized term (or noun phrase) designed to capture the essence of something. The term cannot be enough alone to convey the relevant nuances.

    A planes black box (and all of its component parts, uses, and functions) cannot be understood in intricate detail by intently limiting focusing efforts to the name “black box.” We cannot glean what the prices and menu items are going to be by hearing the name “Pizza Hut.” It would be unwise to conclude a dish of spaghetti is not sold merely because there’s nothing in the name “Pizza Hut.” The phrase “separation of church and state” is just that: a phrase. There is a separation of sorts, and the term helps capture that, but the sorts is a detail to be analyzed by looking to the constitution, not some name label created to reference it. It’s faulty thinking to surmise there should be complete and total separation of church and state by virtue of a term created to reference a particular passage in the constitution. Even the very idea of separation in this context is sufficiently vague to clue us in that it’s the constitution that should be interpreted.

    Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.[41]

    The First Congress' deliberations show that its understanding of the separation of church and state differed sharply from that of their contemporaries in Europe.[citation needed] As the 19th-century historian Philip Schaff observed:

    The American separation of church and state rests upon respect for the church; the [European anticlerical] separation, on indifference and hatred of the church, and of religion itself... The constitution did not create a nation, nor its religion and institutions. It found them already existing, and was framed for the purpose of protecting them under a republican form of government, in a rule of the people, by the people, and for the people.[42]

  9. Top | #29
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    16,845
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,345
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Any public official who does this should be forced to attend a religious ceremony of the religion they most dislike.
    Shit, our public officials won't even sit politely through an opening prayer if it's not on their approved list.

  10. Top | #30
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,681
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    The very first CSS lawsuit was started by Catholics. Their kids were praying in school and they wanted it stopped.
    It was a Baptist prayer.

    The court upheld that the free practice of their religion meant that they had to be protected from a different religion. No person has a right to make anyone else live by their religion. It's infringing on a fairly important freedom. Top ten, even.

    I wouldn't even want a Christain judge telling Hovind that the tax-dodging, science-illiterate, scammer is a poor excuse for a Christain. He is, but that's not the reason we put judges on the benches.
    This.
    State-sponsored mandatory secular atheism is an imposition of someone else's religion on me.
    You're not 'separating' The State from religion.
    You're just excluding every other religion except atheism.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •