Absence of evidence, etc., Claus. Your calling for a double standard when it is convenient, doen't make it so.
Crazy laws get passed all the time. You cannot assume they are constitutional merely because they haven't been challenged. It is not the Judiciary's responsibility to check every law, only those brought to it. This is how American law works.
Laws are only unconstitutional if they are ruled to be unconstitutional. Until they have been challenged, they are not against the constitution. Such a decision is for the SCOTUS to decide.
Are you saying that the laws of the land are unconstitutional until challenged?
Abstenance only birth control, actually. Tell me, what is innately religious about that? Strictly speaking, it is an effective form of birth control, albeit nieve and not particularly popular. Do you see the problem? The action itself is not inherently religious even though the motivation behind it probably is. It isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.
Give me a break! You know damn well that abstinence is a hallmark of the religious Right. "No sex before marriage". "Sex leads to destruction of society".
No, it is about attitudes and impressions and having the capacity to speak authoritatively about them. I was only partially a part of that time in American history, but you weren't a part of it at all. Who are you to tell me what I felt and thought? Or what my parents thought? Or my grandparents?
I'm not telling you what you or your family thought. I am referring to historical facts.
Why are they still there? Becuase they are minor things of no practical importance.
You
got to be kidding. You swear in court, but refuse to utter the words "so help me God", and think you'll get a fair trial from your religious peers?
Where would you draw the line?
The witch hunts of McCarthyism have had the longest impact on American culture. Try reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible". Try understanding why "McCarthyism" still has such negative connotations in American society.
I am perfectly aware of the long-term impacts on American society. I am also perfectly aware that religion is a much more pervasive issue.
As I have said before, emphasis on the innateness of what the writers of the DoI termed "certain inalianable rights".
I'm not talking about whether right are unalienable or not. I'm talking about where those rights come from. They come from a supernatural being.
Unless I've missed something, I've countered every argument you have presented to me. Whereas you have have ignored my arguments about the rhetorics in the DoI, the fact that the DoI has no legal bearing over the Constitution, the distinction between a secular government and a religious populous, and the major significance of McCarthyism. In all cases, your response is to either ignore what I've said, respond with "nu-uh", or to re-assert what you have previously said, irrelevent though it may be.
I haven't ignored your arguments at all. I've pointed out that what you call the rhetorics in the DoI are not rhetorics at all. I haven't argued that the DoI has legal bearing over the Constitution. I have pointed out that it is the starting point of the US - without a declaration of independence, no independence, no constitution, and no US. The DoI, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are called The Charters of Freedom for a reason. I am also perfectly aware of the difference between a secular government and a religious population. However, it is naive to think that religion doesn't play a huge role in US politics. I haven't downplayed the significance of McCarthyism, I have just pointed out that religion is a much more pervasive issue.
So, no, I haven't ignored your arguments or merely said "nu-uh". I just don't find them compelling.
No one is denying that the words "Creator" and "God" appear in the Declaration of Independence, it is your interpretation that I disagree with. No one is denying that the majority of the American populace has religious beliefs, it is your conclusion that this means that the American government is also religious that I disagree with. No one is denying that religious terminology was intruduced into minute parts of the US Government during the 1950s, it is why this happend that we disagree on.
How can God not mean a supernatural being?
On none of these points of contention have you offered any evidence for your opinions. You just keep reiterating your evidence for the stuff that we already agree on.
I have offered plenty of evidence.
Every time nativity scenes are brought to court, they are either disallowed or forced to make equal space for any other religious display.
eta: Nativity scenes on public property, that is.
Exactly! Religion is supported by the Government.
Totally irrelevent to what I was saying. Humans have had winter festivals at least as long as we've the ability to record our own history. Christmas co-opted earlier winter festivals and became the traditional name for it in our society. Interestingly, early Americans rejected the idea of celebrating Christmas because it was considered too English (bad blood, I guess). But it was later re-adopted as part of our cultural heritage.
It is highly relevant to what I am saying.
How can God not mean a supernatural being?
