[MD] Tea Bagging

[118]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:26 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Mark said to dmb:
> ... From my following of recent talking heads, there is nothing in the
> constitution which demands the separation of church and state (in fact the
> houses start each day with a prayer).
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> Yea, that's what Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said on TV recently.
> As Steve pointed out, O'Donnell revealed "her fundamental misunderstanding
> of what our Constitution is" when she said that. "That's in the First
> Amendment?" O'Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room.
> Any Senate candidate who doesn't understand that certainly deserves to be
> laughed at. As Obama said in a speech recently, this is the essence of who
> we are as a nation. If O'Donnell wins she'll be taking an oath to preserve,
> protect and defend a constitution that she does not understand. In that same
> debate, in fact, she staked out positions that violate that particular
> constitutional principle - the teaching of creationism in public schools.
>
> I can't imagine that any talking head would deny the separation clause of
> the first amendment, except on FOX. The idea is well established in law and
> history and the law school audience that laughed at O'Donnell knows that all
> too well. And every American really should understand that. The first
> amendment is arguably the central pillar of our democracy. It's central in
> the list of principles that Pirsig uses to describe intellectual values, the
> values that should be used to guide society and to protect the process of
> intellectual evolution from social level interference.
>
> I've noticed that religious people sometimes have trouble grasping this
> concept. That's not just a co-incidence, I suppose. There's plain old
> ignorance of course but there are ideological static filters at work too.
> They correlate so strongly that it ALMOST seems like religiosity itself
> CAUSES confusion about the First Amendment. Almost. It almost seems like
> one's understanding and appreciation of the separation principle is in
> direct REVERSE proportion to one's wish for the establishment of religion.
> In other words, it is misread to the extent that it undermines one's wishes.
> Psychologically speaking, this is a fascinating phenomenon.
>
> Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas interprets the first amendment is the
> weakest possible way. He thinks it only prohibits the establishment of a
> federal church by the national Congress and that the 50 State legislatures
> should each be allowed to impose a State religion on its citizens. Does that
> sound like freedom of religion to you? Not me. I think that's morally
> outrageous and wildly unAmerican.
>


[Mark replies to dmb's reply]
I believe that O'Donnell was coached to provide enlightenment on the
explicit statements made in the first amendment.  Quite obviously she was
unable to do so, and the soundbites can certainly be used against her by
those who want to misinterpret.  This is democracy at its lowest point as
usual, right before an election.  Let me assert that there is no explicit
discussion of the separation of church and state in that amendment.  Such a
thing would not have been considered at that time since the colonies were
governed in highly religious manners.  What the amendment states is that the
government will not establish a theocracy like they have in Iran (for
example).  This is an important distinction.

The interpretation of separation of church came in 1947 according to Wiki.
 Wiki then goes on to say that it was so intended and that is why it became
interpreted that (way many, many years after it was created).  But this is
typical Wiki misdirection.  So, supreme court interpretations come and go.
 They are created as precedent and then ruled against in some subsequent
supreme court case.  They fit the times, but do not define the future and
should not be used for activist purposes by anyone.  So, the idea of
separation of church and state is far from well established, although it may
be in your mind.  And yes, the interpretation is always open, something
which you would want to prevent for those who hold opposing views to yours.

So I am not religious but I do have a problem grasping what you are
proposing.  When you are supporting the laughing of law students, you are
also supporting profound indoctrination into a religious perspective.  I
know that you probably do not see it that way, but that is because of your
extreme faith.  Your concept of protecting intellectual evolution is only
putting blinkers on such evolution.  It can only evolve in the way you want
it too, you are creating all sorts of static filters.  Is intellectual
evolution really that fragile?  Perhaps you do not give it the credit it
deserves.  Perhaps you think we can control it, Heavens to Betsy!

If the states want to impose a theocracy, I do not believe it is allowed.
 However, I am not a constitutional scholar like our current president (who
by the way has got all sorts of interpretations of his own). If what you say
about Thomas is true (which I doubt), then he is clearly mistaken.
However, I would prefer weak interpretation to the dogmatic interpretation
you are providing.  I think that is dangerous.

In my humble opinion,

Mark

>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>