"... under God"

[4est_4est_Gump]

His point is that Thomas Jefferson's personal feelings about the First Ammendment are not of any legal consequence, since Jefferson neither wrote the First Ammendment nor had any legal authority to interpret it. A lot of people love to throw down the famous Jefferson quote as if he is an authority on the matter; he wasn't. He was just a guy with opinions.

Actually, Jefferson and the founders were well-steeped in the emergence of true Liberalism, which means that he was of the school of thought and thus very much an authority on original intent just as Federalist is an excellent tool for discerning intent. It was the rise of Progressivism that brought us to the Alice-in-Wonderland age of interpretive constitutional law where successive dissenting opinion(s) can then be used as precedent and penumbras divined from the various letters of the founders while ignoring original intent as, to quote a famous president, "a charter of negative liberties..."

 

[EducatedOwl]

Actually, Jefferson and the founders were well-steeped in the emergence of true Liberalism, which means that he was of the school of thought and thus very much an authority on original intent just as Federalist is an excellent tool for discerning intent.

None of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law. Jefferson's writing and the Federalist Papers are a useful tool for understanding what some of the founding fathers were thinking, but between the two of them they represent the opinions of four people total, only one of which actually had any hand in the authorship of the Constitution.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

None of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law. Jefferson's writing and the Federalist Papers are a useful tool for understanding what some of the founding fathers were thinking, but between the two of them they represent the opinions of four people total, only one of which actually had any hand in the authorship of the Constitution.

There, as is my point, were a limited number of writers, but like the representative republic that they created, they were writing for the movement, not for themselves.

 

[phrodeau]

Fallacy.

You been on the court, in government, or in the military?



There might be a lot of things, if held to the same standard that makes your thoughts on many topic irrelevant. Of course your smug, self-assured snark already does a good job of that already...

You on the other hand are an authority on the null set.

 

[eyer]

Jefferson's writings (including the "wall" you're so hung up on, which I never cited) is not in the Constitution, and is therefore not a binding absolute in the way you seem to think it is.

Address what you believe to be the difference between Jefferson's "wall" and what the 1st commands...

...or just stfu.

Also, do you think that ordering children to endorse a particular God is "within the powers of legitimate government reach"?

"ordering"?

With disingenuous hyperbole like that, I think you're just another wannabe on the subject. And which "particular God" is government "ordering" "children to endorse", in your opinion?

What is "freedom of speech in government"? Is the government a citizen with Constitutional rights?

No...

...in fact, government is a collection of citizens with full constitutional rights (constitutional isn't capitalized, doofus).

Why do you have a problem with that, too?

 

[EducatedOwl]

And I repeat: none of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law, which is why it doesn't work to defend your position by framing it within the context of Jefferson's wall, or to attack my position by challenging me to frame it within the context of Jefferson's wall. Jefferson's wall is the subjective opinion of one man who wasn't even part of the Constitutional Convention. Your adherence to what you think it means does not make you right, and my departure from what you think it means does not make me wrong.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And I repeat: none of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law, which is why it doesn't work to defend your position by framing it within the context of Jefferson's wall, or to attack my position by challenging me to frame it within the context of Jefferson's wall. Jefferson's wall is the subjective opinion of one man who wasn't even part of the Constitutional Convention. Your adherence to what you think it means does not make you right, and my departure from what you think it means does not make me wrong.

Well said if you want to say nothing.

It was a shared school of thought. It could never be like a Presidential signing where each member would step up with pen and write a word in turn.

It was written under a consensus of thought and philosophy and the writings and correspondences of all involved give us greater insight and understanding as to the intended legalities and effects of the document itself.

 

[eyer]

None of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law. Jefferson's writing and the Federalist Papers are a useful tool for understanding what some of the founding fathers were thinking, but between the two of them they represent the opinions of four people total, only one of which actually had any hand in the authorship of the Constitution.

Madison and Hamilton both were Convention delegates (that's two who "actually had any hand in the authorship of the Constitution, not your erroneous "one")...

...and John Jay's "opinions" were held in such high regard, he just happened to be named first Chief Justice of the new Supreme Court of the United States of America.

And you should read Madison some time as he relates his Convention proceedings in relation to the thoughts of his mentor Jefferson, who happened to be America's representative to France at the time of the Convention and who Madison kept appraised of what was going on in Philadelphia...

...so, why can't you post factually about the issue instead of disingenuously? You do understand reality has nothing to do with how you feel, right?

 

[EducatedOwl]

Address what you believe to be the difference between Jefferson's "wall" and what the 1st commands...

...or just stfu.

How many words does it take to explain that what one guy (who was not involved in the writing of the Constitution) thinks about the Constitution is not the same thing as the Constitution itself?

"ordering"?

With disingenuous hyperbole like that, I think you're just another wannabe on the subject. And which "particular God" is government "ordering" "children to endorse", in your opinion?

First, if we are telling children to say a pledge that contains the words "under God", we are ordering the recitation of something that endorses a god. Period.

Second, the idea that "God", in this context, can mean any higher power is a recent invention. The only religions who refer to their deity as "God" are the Abrahamic religions. The "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is the Abrahamic God.

No...

...in fact, government is a collection of citizens with full constitutional rights (constitutional isn't capitalized, doofus).

Why do you have a problem with that, too?

In their own lives, of course they have free speech. But public policy is not speech (in the Constitutional sense of the term). Public policy is what the First Amendment defends speech from.

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions of government power over individuals. It does not grant any rights or authority to the government.

 

[eyer]

And I repeat: none of it constitutes (a) law or (b) legally authoritative interpretation of law, which is why it doesn't work to defend your position by framing it within the context of Jefferson's wall, or to attack my position by challenging me to frame it within the context of Jefferson's wall. Jefferson's wall is the subjective opinion of one man who wasn't even part of the Constitutional Convention. Your adherence to what you think it means does not make you right, and my departure from what you think it means does not make me wrong.

Listen, retreater...

...Jefferson's "wall" was brought up by your side of the argument in this thread, as it routinely is by those against freedom of religion who don't understand Jefferson's intent, and/or by those who intentionally misrepresent it.

I have yet to read you proclaim what "your position" is as far as what Jefferson is actually asserting with his "wall" commentary, or offer any foundation at all supporting "your position" that the 1st Amendment commands religion to stay out of government...

...quite babbling like a crooked, broke lawyer and either address these pertinent issues with honesty or gtfo, poser.

 

[Dazzle1]

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT for the Commonwealth
Case Docket: SJC-11317

JANE DOE & others vs. ACTON-BOXBOROUGH REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT & others


On September 4, a groundbreaking case of great importance to atheists and humanists will be heard before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Doe vs. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District is brought through the AHA's Appignani Humanist Legal Center, and is the first in the nation to assert the rights of atheists-humanist solely via equal protection and nondiscrimination. The case challenges the state law that requires daily school-sponsored and teacher-led classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, because the pledge's "under God" wording discriminates against atheists-humanists by instilling and defining patriotism according to God-belief.

Atheists like this are among the most intolerant.

I never had a problem with Christian decorations at school, being a white male, I never had a problem with Black History Month

 

[eyer]

Just more blah, blah, blah...

Go find a sap, ambulance chaser...

...these hands are wiped of you.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Well said if you want to say nothing.

It was a shared school of thought. It could never be like a Presidential signing where each member would step up with pen and write a word in turn.

It was written under a consensus of thought and philosophy and the writings and correspondences of all involved give us greater insight and understanding as to the intended legalities and effects of the document itself.

That's all true. But none of that gives Jefferson's opinions Constitutional authority.

When you say things like this...

Do you really need me to bold for you where he insists that "a wall" is built between "the legitimate powers of government reach" and "opinion" ("religion")?

Now, will you please bold for me where Jeff even implies in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist association that religious opinion must be kept out of government - can you do that? How 'bout if you research most of what Jefferson has ever written - because I have, and have never read what you and your ilk on this matter profess.

Jefferson's "wall" serves one, and only one, constitutional purpose:

...to elevate religion ("opinion") above the reach ("action") of government.



What the fvck does your subjective assessment there have to do with Jefferson's "wall" and what the 1st dictates to government?

...you are talking about more than consensus of thought and philosophy. You are asserting that something must be approved by Jefferson in order to be Constitutional. And that's just not true.

 

[BiTodd]

No child is required to say it....... at least where my girls go.
My daughters don't. I don't. I sit at the swim meets and hope someone questions why I am the only person sitting while the national anthem is being sang poorly, as well.
The plege is a a choice, I opted out years ago.

 

[EducatedOwl]

Atheists like this are among the most intolerant.

I never had a problem with Christian decorations at school, being a white male, I never had a problem with Black History Month

I don't have a problem with Christian decorations either. I was raised in the church, in a family intimately involved in the workings of the church. Christian symbology doesn't bother me one bit; in fact, it's my bread and butter.

But the government (and therefore the public school system) can't be in the business of endorsing a god or a religion. That is beyond the authority of the government.

 

[EducatedOwl]

No child is required to say it....... at least where my girls go.
My daughters don't. I don't. I sit at the swim meets and hope someone questions why I am the only person sitting while the national anthem is being sang poorly, as well.
The plege is a a choice, I opted out years ago.

This is what people used to say about teachers leading prayers in school: kids can just choose not to participate. But what eventually happened is that judges decided that teachers leading prayers was still the school endorsing religion. I suspect this will go the same way.

 

[ChinaBandit]

religions and corporations get the most tax loopholes, while the person in the field has to pay with the sweat off their back.

Corporations create the 'fields' allowing people to get paid for the sweat off their backs.

Aside from a few farmers, who gets any cash for sweating in their own field?

 

[richard_daily]

Corporations create the 'fields' allowing people to get paid for the sweat off their backs.

Aside from a few farmers, who gets any cash for sweating in their own field?

do you get paid more for working in your own fields, or sweating in someone else's?

 

[Dazzle1]

I don't have a problem with Christian decorations either. I was raised in the church, in a family intimately involved in the workings of the church. Christian symbology doesn't bother me one bit; in fact, it's my bread and butter.

But the government (and therefore the public school system) can't be in the business of endorsing a god or a religion. That is beyond the authority of the government.

It's non demoniational and voluntary, whats the problem?

and if God we Trust is taken off currency I want the atheists who are going to court on this to pay for all the reingineering costs

 

[phrodeau]

It's non demoniational and voluntary, whats the problem?

and if God we Trust is taken off currency I want the atheists who are going to court on this to pay for all the reingineering costs

Do your debit cards have "In God We Trust" on them?

 

[EducatedOwl]

It's non demoniational and voluntary, whats the problem?

and if God we Trust is taken off currency I want the atheists who are going to court on this to pay for all the reingineering costs

The problem is, as I said, that the government isn't allowed to endorse a religion. For a public school to cover itself in the trappings of Christianity is a government endorsement of a religion.