Newdow yet again.....This time the inauguration

[T'ai Chi]

Any attempt to eradicate something so destructive to human society is good in my book.

It can be motivation for bad, but also good. Think Martin Luther King, for example.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It can be motivation for bad, but also good. Think Martin Luther King, for example.

Martin Luther King was just a good person. He would have done what he did without religion too.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
No one is obligated to be there, but don't you know that you're obligated to pay for it!? It's tax money that is funding this crap.

So I am obligated to pay for the inauguration of the President of the United States. So? From my standpoint, the more in your face it is, the better. Are you suggesting that he should sorta slink off somewhere after the oath? Again, so what?

Any attempt to eradicate something so destructive to human society is good in my book.

It won't happen. Not during any number of lifetimes. You might try looking for some fights that can be won.[/QUOTE]

 

[T'ai Chi]

He would have done what he did without religion too.

While I don't really disagree with that, that is speculation.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art, I consider these guys to the on the good side. I'd be interested in finding out what gave you the impression of "pompous." And if "like that" means something other than the pompous reference, what does it allude to?

Mostly it was the tone of their "Bible Quiz". The general feeling I got from that was "Look at how awful Christianity is". If they really want to present arguments for that, they should do so, instead of hiding behind a "quiz" and the implicit claim that their answers are the "right ones".

The most egregious example is the one about bats:

Biblical biology rates an 'F.' Bats are mammals, not birds. This is another good reason to keep bibles out of science classes.
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture . . . And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." (Leviticus 11:13-19, where "fowl" is oph. Repeated in Deuteronomy 14:11-20, calling the same list "birds" [tsippor] and "fowls" [oph])

The biblical writers did not understand the classification of animals, and the concept of "mammal" is absent from their writings. The bible was clearly not inspired by an all-knowing god.

What, do they think the Bible was written in English? A word which was translated into English as "bird" was used to refer to a word that was translated into English as "bat". Who are we to tells Jews what their words should mean? There is nothing "scientific" about putting bats and birds into separate categories; that is simply a cultural choice. Saying that they did not understand the classification of animals is silly; it's like saying that they didn't understand the classification of books because they didn't follow the Dewey decimal system. The scientific system of nomenclature is not the One True Classification System, and not following it does not denote a failure to understand "the" classification of animals. These people just make atheists look like jackasses who cannot even imagine that there might be other cultures.

They also have questionable parsing skills. After quoting the Bible as saying

And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

they claim that "he" refers to God, when it clearly refers to Judah.

Other "evidence" against Christianity include interbreeding between angles and humans, referring to the heart as the source of thoughts, and grasshoppers being kosher (more cultural chauvanism).

 

[Art Vandelay]

And who, precisely, is saying that?

Whoever it is that insists that "we" trust in God. If "we" trust in God, then surely anyone who does not trust in God cannot possibly be part of this "we", no?

As to what's wrong with "challenging" religious mentions en masse is that you're going to get a backlash, setting back your own cause.

What is our cause, if not to oppose blatant bigotry? Should we let injustice slide, because opposing it will make things worse?

All he's "exposed" is that he's a piss-poor lawyer to not realize he had no standing to bring the pledge case in the first place.

So were all those judges who agreed with him that he had standing also "piss-poor" lawyers?

How is the president swearing an oath to the office in "his" honor? I don't quite see that. Seems more to me that it's in the Constitution's honor. Could you elaborate?

I didn't say the swearing in is in his honor. I said that the ceremony surrounding it is in his honor. All the consitution requires is the oath "I do solemnly swear..." I timed myself, and it took me less than twelve seconds to say it. Do you think on Inauguration Day, Bush will get up, run through the oath, then say "okay, that's done, let's all go home"?

peptoabysmal

He's also a dickweed who's going to cost taxpayers a lot of money over a non-issue that will be thrown out of court (again).
... Unless it's the 9th circuit, then the Supreme Court will have to overturn (again).

If you're talking about the inaguaration, I don't see how the 9th circuit could possibly have jurisdiction. If you're talking about the pledge, this is most certainly not a "non-issue". And complaining about the cost is blaming the victim; if taxpayers didn't insist on violating our rights, they could save themselves the cost of the suit. Oh, and the Supreme Court never overturned the 9th circuit decision that this is unconstitutional; if they had, that would be another way for those poor taxpayers to save their precious money.

Skeptic

What about questioning whether women have the right to vote, or whether blacks are actually human beings and not apes? Shouldn't we QUESTION such assumptions?

I don't see anything wrong with it.

It seems unlikely that all of them had "misinterpreted' the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment deals with what CONGRESS can or cannot do WITH THE LAWS IT PASSES: "Congress shall make no law...", etc. It doesn't say a damn thing about the PRESIDENT can or cannot mention God (the president does not make the law, although he can veto it), nor, for that matter, about what Congressmen can or cannot do in the building itself.

And there are absolutely no laws that deal with the inauguration? I suppose it would be okay for the army to arrest every nonChristian in the country, as long Congress didn't actually pass a law authorizing it. Every government act can be traced back to an act of congress; that's what makes it a government act.

Batman Jr.

No one is obligated to be there, but don't you know that you're obligated to pay for it!? It's tax money that is funding this crap.

Even if the ceremony is funded by tax money, is the invocation specifically so funded?

 

[T'ai Chi]

How does Newdow get harmed by hearing a prayer?

 

[Batman Jr.]

So I am obligated to pay for the inauguration of the President of the United States. So? From my standpoint, the more in your face it is, the better. Are you suggesting that he should sorta slink off somewhere after the oath? Again, so what?

He shouldn't be endorsing any one religion in a publicly funded ceremony. That’s what I'm suggesting. He should at least do the oath sans the prayers. He can pursue his religion on his own time and on his own money.

Ideally, I don't think he should be making the inauguration into such a spectacle in the first place when I look at what a sorry state our budget is in. Talking about places to "curb" spending, don't you think stupid, nonutilitarian social functions like the inaugural ball ought to be scrapped before anything else? And then aside from my pragmatic leanings, I find it distasteful for the President to indulge himself in the kind of saturnalia involved in those sorts of things in a time of such solemnity, and a solemnity—i.e. that which was brought on by the distressing war in Iraq—that he himself had helped needlessly to champion at that.

Originally posted by Ed
It won't happen. Not during any number of lifetimes. You might try looking for some fights that can be won.

The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Even if the ceremony is funded by tax money, is the invocation specifically so funded?

I think that's irrelevant. In either case, the vehicle for its presentation is taxpayer-funded.

 

[Jocko]

He shouldn't be endorsing any one religion in a publicly funded ceremony. That’s what I'm suggesting. He should at least do the oath sans the prayers. He can pursue his religion on his own time and on his own money.

Er, if you mean those religions that propose the existence of a God, then I guess I have to ask... what does that leave? BTW, Wicca is not a religion. It's parent punishment.

Ideally, I don't think he should be making the inauguration into such a spectacle in the first place when I look at what a sorry state our budget is in. Talking about places to "curb" spending, don't you think stupid, nonutilitarian social functions like the inaugural ball ought to be scrapped before anything else? And then aside from my pragmatic leanings, I find it distasteful for the President to indulge himself in the kind of saturnalia involved in those sorts of things in a time of such solemnity, and a solemnity—i.e. that which was brought on by the distressing war in Iraq—that he himself had helped needlessly to champion at that.

Okay, how many years have we run a surplus? 16? 18? So do you condemn all the other spendthrifts, Democrat, Republican, Federalist, Whig, etc. who did the same thing?

The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.

You fail to calculate the cost of the backlash caused by a grandstanding spotlight hog. As I said before, such people often do more harm than good. Look at Nader in 2000 if you need an example.

I think that's irrelevant. In either case, the vehicle for its presentation is taxpayer-funded.

And how much is the incremental taxpayer cost for the inclusion of "God" in the text? Care to parse the expense by the word? Sheesh.

 

[Ed]

The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.

Good? How? By making atheists look petty? By suggesting that all that can or should be done is Quixotic? By suggesting that the serious issues of the establishment clause are bumper stickers? This is not a big one and the inauguration of the American President is a big deal and no one with an once of PR sense would touch it with a ten foot pole. The only thing more stupid would be for him (or anyone) to have made a stink over prayers at Reagens funeral service. No one will remember this idiot crusade 5 minutes after it is rendered irrelevant. And for what precisely?

This will go over like a turd in a punchbowl.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Er, if you mean those religions that propose the existence of a God, then I guess I have to ask... what does that leave? BTW, Wicca is not a religion. It's parent punishment.

When did I ever refer to the religions as being just those which include God? I mean that religion shouldn't play a part in the proceedings, period. I don't know what is with you people.

Originally posted by Jocko
Okay, how many years have we run a surplus? 16? 18? So do you condemn all the other spendthrifts, Democrat, Republican, Federalist, Whig, etc. who did the same thing?

Of course I do. I'm surprised at you, Jocko, the supposed arch-conservative. It's okay for the government to spend money on lavish nonsense but socialist programs trying to satisfy the most basic needs of the less fortunate are out of the question?

Originally posted by Jocko
You fail to calculate the cost of the backlash caused by a grandstanding spotlight hog. As I said before, such people often do more harm than good. Look at Nader in 2000 if you need an example.

How does this compare to Nader? We're talking about a candidate splitting the vote in an election as opposed to a guy bringing a case to court. The two situations are incompatible.

There's always going to be backlash when we deal with institutions of such consequence and controversy. You're always going to have the reactionaries. But you can never make any progress if you're going to let yourself be bated by them.

Originally posted by Jocko
And how much is the incremental taxpayer cost for the inclusion of "God" in the text? Care to parse the expense by the word? Sheesh.

Even if it were free, for it to be given audience at a publicly-funded gathering makes the issue important.

Originally posted by Ed
Good? How? By making atheists look petty? By suggesting that all that can or should be done is Quixotic? By suggesting that the serious issues of the establishment clause are bumper stickers? This is not a big one and the inauguration of the American President is a big deal and no one with an once of PR sense would touch it with a ten foot pole. The only thing more stupid would be for him (or anyone) to have made a stink over prayers at Reagens funeral service. No one will remember this idiot crusade 5 minutes after it is rendered irrelevant. And for what precisely?

This will go over like a turd in a punchbowl.

I don't see how the government's endorsement of a particular religion is a "bumper sticker." Many religious people feel just as anxious as Newdow about mentions of God being purged from public proceedings. No one is going to look at this as being petty.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I'll repeat:

How does Newdow get harmed by hearing a prayer?

Would he get just as 'harmed' if a person of office wore a visible cross, for example, or brought a Bible to work?

 

[T'ai Chi]

check out the music samples at

http://www.restorethepledge.com/store/

lol

 

[Ed]

I don't see how the government's endorsement of a particular religion is a "bumper sticker." Many religious people feel just as anxious as Newdow about mentions of God being purged from public proceedings. No one is going to look at this as being petty.

It is not clear that a mention of god serves as an endorcement of anything important. It hardly indicates that the government is establishing a religion. The bumper sticker aspect is the word or words during the inauguration.

"Purging mentions of God" sounds rather Kymer Rougeish. Certainly there is a free speech element too, is there not? And what happens if someone mentions "god"? Does he go to the slammer? Does this mean that clergy cannot outwardly wear religious simbols on the podium? Would you be outraged if a Cardinal crossed himself?

This is taking on the appearence of the looniness of the people from the right who see satan in every form of entertainment and complain to the FCC on a regular basis. Some of their complaints may have some merit but it ends up looking like these folks have too much time on their hands and thus marginalizes any valid points that they may have.

 

[hammegk]

Karl Rove et al could not have manufactured a better boogeyman than Newdow is providing at no charge. (Assuming he is at "no charge" ... )

 

[Ed]

Karl Rove et al could not have manufactured a better boogeyman than Newdow is providing at no charge. (Assuming he is at "no charge" ... )

Yeah, like the people who chained themselves up in protest against the iraq war in SF. I am sure they received the accolades of their peers whilst sipping lo-cal demi lattes later that evening.

 

[Batman Jr.]

It is not clear that a mention of god serves as an endorcement of anything important. It hardly indicates that the government is establishing a religion. The bumper sticker aspect is the word or words during the inauguration.

What, so they have to read the entire Bible to you for you to get their message? A mention of God is sufficient to express religious conviction just as a simple "zieg heil" will tell you that a person is a Nazi.

Originally posted by Ed
"Purging mentions of God" sounds rather Kymer Rougeish. Certainly there is a free speech element too, is there not? And what happens if someone mentions "god"? Does he go to the slammer? Does this mean that clergy cannot outwardly wear religious simbols on the podium? Would you be outraged if a Cardinal crossed himself?

This isn't about disallowing religion. This is about keeping religion out of government and making people realize why the two institutions can't mix.

Originally posted by Ed
This is taking on the appearence of the looniness of the people from the right who see satan in every form of entertainment and complain to the FCC on a regular basis. Some of their complaints may have some merit but it ends up looking like these folks have too much time on their hands and thus marginalizes any valid points that they may have.

Now those people are trying to limit freedom of speech. They are attacking the messages of a private industry and attempting to get them censored. I'm attacking the messages of the government for which every citizen of this country holds a very important responsibility. When money out of our own pockets goes toward the proliferation of a message we don't like, then it is very much our business whether or not that message is allowed.

 

[hammegk]

When money out of our own pockets goes toward the proliferation of a message we don't like, then it is very much our business whether or not that message is allowed.

Umm, like teaching schoolkids that homo=hetero? Or that man-man or woman-woman pairs are a marriage equal in all regards to man-woman marriage? Or that referring to baby-killers as people who Choose makes it ok?

Please Ed, if only Newdow marries a (male) gay pedophile & they adopt lots of kids ..... then make snuff films starring them. Maybe the Dems have found the perfect candidate?

 

[varwoche]

Umm, like teaching schoolkids that homo=hetero? Or that man-man or woman-woman pairs are a marriage equal in all regards to man-woman marriage? Or that referring to baby-killers as people who Choose makes it ok?

Please Ed, if only Newdow marries a (male) gay pedophile & they adopt lots of kids ..... then make snuff films starring them. Maybe the Dems have found the perfect candidate?

Can you cite a public school textbook/cirriculum that teaches "homo=hetero"? If schoolkids are being taught this, it would be incredibly stupid. But it wouldn't violate the constitution.

As to the baby-killers comment, need I remind you that legal abortion is the of the land? Are you suggesting that schools keep this fact secret?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy really does bring up some idiotic points. It's like his entire estate is full of strawmen that he just wants to share with the entire world.