J
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
yes, disturbing
surely an anti xian book will be next.
look at the US accomodation with Beijing re Olympics. look at Bush's tepid comments about human rights.
look at the enthusiasm for chinese "capitalism" by our local "libertarian," roxanne.
as you know, jbj, i make the case that the liberty and church state separation etc, is one US pattern, on the wane. Mass Bay Colony is the deeper pattern. consolidated church state.
if john yoo can work out the rationale for torture, admin lawyers can handle the church state separation problem. (as is being done now, in federal funding of abstinence programs.)
surely an anti xian book will be next.
look at the US accomodation with Beijing re Olympics. look at Bush's tepid comments about human rights.
look at the enthusiasm for chinese "capitalism" by our local "libertarian," roxanne.
as you know, jbj, i make the case that the liberty and church state separation etc, is one US pattern, on the wane. Mass Bay Colony is the deeper pattern. consolidated church state.
if john yoo can work out the rationale for torture, admin lawyers can handle the church state separation problem. (as is being done now, in federal funding of abstinence programs.)
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
PURE
I cant figure out why churches arent taxed.
I cant figure out why churches arent taxed.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
more accurately, jbj, vast commercial empires including tv stations distributers of tapes and literature, promoters of entertainment, etc are called 'churches'. the membership of one such 'superchurch' may be in the tens of thousands. they vote.
http://www.superchurch.org/
http://www.superchurch.org/
Last edited:
Roxanne Appleby
Masterpiece
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Posts
- 11,231
Tell me Pure: Do you believe the Chinese were better off under a system that allowed no forms of private enterprise, in which one billion humans barely survived at subsistence level, with no hope for anything better? Or are they better off today, with some 250 million enjoying solid middle class standards of living or better, several hundred million more moving rapidly in that direction, and the prospects excellent for much more improvements in human well being over the next generation? Is this what you're sneering at? Perhaps North Korea is your model state, then.
Actually, I know what you're doing: The same, tired old alienated leftist, elitist habit of comparing reality with utopia and railing that the former comes up short.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
I encourage people to read some of Anthony Daniels' books about life in socialist utopias.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
I consider "Socialist Utopia" to be a contradiction in terms, like fat-free lard or dry moisture. Or honest politician.
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Oh, come on, Pure. Even for you, this is going overboard. Mass. Bay Colony was hundreds of years ago. Some of the colonies were run by churches, which is one reason for the First Amendment.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
what's in the cards
Rehnquist's position about church state relations, endorsed by the Bushies and probably 4 of the present Supreme Ct, e.g. Thomas and Scalia is that the first amendment permits the advancement of Xianity, with government funding, so long as ONE xian denomination is not favored, in particular declared the "official church", as the Anglican church is, in England. So the position is one vote away from reality.
Here is his positioin in a 1985 dissent, for which he is famous.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm
Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in
WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)
United States Supreme Court
WALLACE V. JAFFREE
472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)
[...]
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
[...]
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
[..]
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals
Rehnquist's position about church state relations, endorsed by the Bushies and probably 4 of the present Supreme Ct, e.g. Thomas and Scalia is that the first amendment permits the advancement of Xianity, with government funding, so long as ONE xian denomination is not favored, in particular declared the "official church", as the Anglican church is, in England. So the position is one vote away from reality.
Here is his positioin in a 1985 dissent, for which he is famous.
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm
Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in
WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)
United States Supreme Court
WALLACE V. JAFFREE
472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)
[...]
Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way:
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
. . . . .
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
[...]
It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson.
[..]
The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means.
The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
note to rox
Tell me Pure: Do you believe the Chinese were better off under a system that allowed no forms of private enterprise, in which one billion humans barely survived at subsistence level, with no hope for anything better? Or are they better off today, with some 250 million enjoying solid middle class standards of living or better, several hundred million more moving rapidly in that direction, and the prospects excellent for much more improvements in human well being over the next generation? Is this what you're sneering at? Perhaps North Korea is your model state, then.
pure: It's kind of funny, but whenever socialists advance this argument-- well at least the people are better off, though subject to state dictatorship--Rox and the "values" people scream 'cynicism'; they get hysterical, and begin saying "What about freedom?" the value they allegedly hold above all others.
Above we see the true nature of Rox's belief: so long as there's property rights and money to be made by a few, and some kind of general advancement (aside from those with lung disease or a bullet in the head for 'antisocial activity'), anything goes. Rand at least was honest about priorities: She wore, iirc, a broach in the shape of the $ sign. Money, she said, and rox concurs, is the root of all good.
Applied to the present case: Lots of money is being made in China, so there is lots of good.
As well, of course, Rox endorses the Republican (and partly Democratic) position that the Latin American countries are "free" in the sense of allowing US companies to do as they please. The dictatorships are to be supported with material aid, training of police forces, etc.
In short, Rox is your ultimate "materialist", like her self declared enemies, the Marxists. Prosperity, preferably highly concentrated in an elite class, is her God. The "values" and "liberty" talk is more or less like the "compassion" espoused by George Bush: without substance.
Oh, this isn't to say that Rox isn't happy if there's a bit of liberty--should it happen--once there's prosperity; that can be, so to say, a cherry atop the cake. But it's not necessary; it may be removed for 'raisons d'etat': If the US gov't should continue to 'detain at the Commmander's order' and 'hold indefinitely without trial,' the loss of that cherry wouldn't cause her to lose any sleep. What is my evidence? Rox has ZERO postings on these liberty related topics, as opposed to the dozens on the moral dangers of welfare policies.)
Tell me Pure: Do you believe the Chinese were better off under a system that allowed no forms of private enterprise, in which one billion humans barely survived at subsistence level, with no hope for anything better? Or are they better off today, with some 250 million enjoying solid middle class standards of living or better, several hundred million more moving rapidly in that direction, and the prospects excellent for much more improvements in human well being over the next generation? Is this what you're sneering at? Perhaps North Korea is your model state, then.
pure: It's kind of funny, but whenever socialists advance this argument-- well at least the people are better off, though subject to state dictatorship--Rox and the "values" people scream 'cynicism'; they get hysterical, and begin saying "What about freedom?" the value they allegedly hold above all others.
Above we see the true nature of Rox's belief: so long as there's property rights and money to be made by a few, and some kind of general advancement (aside from those with lung disease or a bullet in the head for 'antisocial activity'), anything goes. Rand at least was honest about priorities: She wore, iirc, a broach in the shape of the $ sign. Money, she said, and rox concurs, is the root of all good.
Applied to the present case: Lots of money is being made in China, so there is lots of good.
As well, of course, Rox endorses the Republican (and partly Democratic) position that the Latin American countries are "free" in the sense of allowing US companies to do as they please. The dictatorships are to be supported with material aid, training of police forces, etc.
In short, Rox is your ultimate "materialist", like her self declared enemies, the Marxists. Prosperity, preferably highly concentrated in an elite class, is her God. The "values" and "liberty" talk is more or less like the "compassion" espoused by George Bush: without substance.
Oh, this isn't to say that Rox isn't happy if there's a bit of liberty--should it happen--once there's prosperity; that can be, so to say, a cherry atop the cake. But it's not necessary; it may be removed for 'raisons d'etat': If the US gov't should continue to 'detain at the Commmander's order' and 'hold indefinitely without trial,' the loss of that cherry wouldn't cause her to lose any sleep. What is my evidence? Rox has ZERO postings on these liberty related topics, as opposed to the dozens on the moral dangers of welfare policies.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
