Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - In that case...

In response to Individual Interpretation??? posted by pink101:

Okay, Pink, in that case....George Washington violated the First Amendment's phrase on "respecting an establishment of religion" (at least YOUR interpretation of those words) when he issued his proclamation for "A Day of Publick Thanksgiving and Prayer." And Congress (the same one that authored the First Amendment, btw) broke the First Amendment when they asked him to issue that proclamation.

You can't have this both ways, Pink. If Congress violated the First Amendent on Dec 11 by passing this very benign, ceremonial endorsement of Christmas and Christianity, then George Washington and the First Congress violated it when they called on the entire nation (and the nations of the world, for that matter) to "acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God" and to offer "prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of nations."

You can read the full text of this Thanksgiving Proclamation at the following link...

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica...

» Migisi - An election year....

.
Ah yes, it's an election year. Congress will try to please everyone.
.
The Christian/Christmas House resolution was passed this month ... and this Islam/Ramadan resolution back in October. Christian tit for Islam tat? Guess Christians needn't feel so special. Interestingly, the Islam/Ramadan Bill passed unanimously, unlike the Christian/Christmas Bill.
.
===================
.
US Congress recognizes Islamic faith through Ramadan Bill
Sunday, 11.11.2007
http://indiapost.com/article/usnews/1386/
.
(quote)
"CHICAGO: After a decade of hard work and efforts of several organizations, US Congress has formally recognized Islam as one of the great world religions and agreed that it rejects "hatred, bigotry and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide" This was part of a House resolution # 635 that was passed with a 376-0 votes recently.
.
"The resolution, that marks a milestone in the history of Muslims in America, was introduced by Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and co-sponsored by 30 legislators, including Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota. Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress.
.
"The American Muslim Voice (AMV) President Khalid Saeed welcomed the resolution and said that the historic Congress move underscores the tradition of religious pluralism and religious freedom in America. Corey Saylor, Government Affairs Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said: "It's a sign that Muslims in America are growing in their recognition as being part of the mainstream fabric of the United States."
.
"Keith Ellison, a co-sponsor of the resolution said that the House resolution shows "solidarity between America and the Muslim community across the world." "It's a sign of respect and recognition." The author of the bill, Eddie Bernice Johnson, told the House, "The Muslim American community contributes to the vibrant growth of American society and culture. Muslim Americans play a significant role in our nation's political process, economic growth, scientific development, free enterprise, religious [missing word]." (end)
....
=============================
.
House Resolution 635
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c1...
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
October 2, 2007.
.
- Whereas it is estimated that there are approximately 1,500,000,000 Muslims worldwide;
.
- Whereas since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, some threats and incidents of violence have been directed at law-abiding, patriotic Americans of African, Arab, and South Asian descent, particularly members of the Islamic faith;
.
- Whereas, on September 14, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a concurrent resolution condemning bigotry and violence against Arab-Americans, American Muslims, and Americans from South Asia in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States;
.
- Whereas some extremists have attempted to use selective interpretations of Islam to justify and encourage hatred, persecution, oppression, violence and terrorism against the United States, the West, Israel, other Muslims, and non-Muslims;
.
- Whereas some Muslims in the United States and abroad have courageously spoken out in rejection of interpretations of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror, and in support of interpretations of and movements within Islam that justify and encourage democracy, tolerance and full civil and political rights for Muslims and those of all faiths;
.
- Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and
.
- Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month:
.
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world;
(2) expresses friendship and support for Muslims in the United States and worldwide;
(3) acknowledges the onset of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and conveys its respect to Muslims in the United States and throughout the world on this occasion;
(4) rejects hatred, bigotry, and violence directed against Muslims, both in the United States and worldwide; and
(5) commends Muslims in the United States and across the globe who have privately and publicly rejected interpretations and movements of Islam that justify and encourage hatred, violence, and terror.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - In that case...

In response to In that case... posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I'm not accusing congress of breaking the law.
.
I have made a statement about what I believe the Constitution means.
.

.
But, it looks like you're arguing that congress DOES have the right to make laws that "respect the establishment of religion".
.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Good TV tomorrow (Dec. 23)

.
Folks here might be interested in watching this TV special tomorrow night....
.
IN GOD'S NAME
http://alpha.cbs.com/specials/in_gods_na...
.
"IN GOD'S NAME, a primetime special produced in association with the acclaimed French filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, will explore the complex questions of our time through the intimate thoughts and beliefs of 12 of the world's most influential spiritual leaders. These diverse and powerful voices offer provocative, compelling and enlightening perspective on myriad issues in our post-9/11 world, including the rise of terrorism, fanaticism, intolerance and war. The special will be broadcast Sunday, December 23 at 9pm et/pt.
.
The program marks the first time that this distinct group of leaders has appeared in one broadcast. These spiritual beacons speak out about violence and hatred and reveal their own thoughts about faith, peace, unity, tolerance and hope. Viewers will see them in intimate settings, including their homes and personal places of worship. Ultimately, through the eyes of these 12 very different religious figures, the filmmakers discover the common ground among believers around the world."

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Establishment Clause

In response to In that case... posted by pink101:

You and I have different understandings of the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." My understanding of that clause lines up with the original intent of the amendment's authors. Yours is a more modern understanding.

» pink101 - Establishment Clause

In response to Establishment Clause posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Everyone knows that congress is the branch of our government that creates legislation.
.
My take is that the clause states congress shall make no laws that esteem any religious establishment. A proclamation doesn't necessarily have the effect of a law. It is less than a law, even thought it can be a strong recommendation.
.
It can be phrased in a number of ways and my phrasing might seem novel; but, it follows the meaning of the actual wording quite well.
.
If the authors (George Mason?) had some ulterior intention, they would have explained it. They were very careful to be quite explicit in their language in the creation of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights that were necessary to get its ratification by the People. I'm sure they were quite familiar with the ways most lawyers twist and scheme to get around the specifics. So, they closed off those possibilities. Religionists have tried every trick in their law books to get around it over the years. This last trick isn't going to work any better than the others.
.
Respect is a stronger word than regard, relate, or pertain. It specifically shows an attitude of honor, esteem, and or high regard.
.
I take it that George Washington may have been opposed to the Bill of Rights. Is that the truth? Can you address that?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Establishment of Religion

In response to Establishment Clause posted by pink101:

You've hit on one VERY significant point. We're talking about a resolution and NOT a law. The resolution that the House passed on Dec 11 was a non-binding resolution. It was NOT a law, and therefore (by definition) does NOT fall within the purview of the First Amendment.

Second, the clause does not say "Congress shall make no law respecting religion." It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion."

The resolution in question did not establish a national church or national religion.

If anything, you and Migisi should be upset with the 1870 law (and we are talking about a LAW there) which established December 25 as a holiday - and officially named that holiday "Christmas" (meaning "Mass for Christ").

But, fortunately, the ACLU and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and others weren't around to try to stop Congress in 1870 from establishing Christmas.

» Brian Tubbs - George Washington

George Washington was the president of the Constitutional Convention, and signed the original Constitution (which did not, at first, contain a bill of rights).

During the ratification debates, he expressed (in letters) an agreeable openness to a bill of rights. Here's a link to one such letter (this one to Lafayette written in 1788)...

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?am...

When the Constitution was ratified (without a bill of rights), Washington was unanimously elected first President by the Electoral College and took office in 1789.

Upon taking office, Washington let it be known he supported adding a bill of rights.

Rep. James Madison then proposed 12 amendments (based on language from George Mason's Virginia Bill of Rights). Eleven of the 12 were sent to the states by that First Congress. The states accepted ten of them. Those became the Bill of Rights.

Did George Washington advocate breaking the Bill of Rights?

No. He supported them.

But I don't think he understood them in the same way you do.

» pink101 - Establishment of Religion

In response to Establishment of Religion posted by BrianTubbs:
.
No one wants to be the Grinch that steals Christmas.
.
By the way, if you can point to some place in these exchanges where I claimed congress had passed a law that shows any esteem for some religious establishment, I'd like you to do that.
.
The idea of "an ESTABLISHMENT of religion" can be compared to the idea of "an ESTABLISHMENT of ANY institution". Could you give an example of an establishment of religion?
.
That's two questions for you. The one about George Washington and the one in this post.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Establishment of Religion

In response to Establishment of Religion posted by pink101:

What the Founders meant by "establishment of religion" is abundantly clear. One only needs to look at what they declared independence FROM. They didn't want a Church of America like there was a Church of England. They didn't want the President of the United States (the Head of State for the US) serving also as the Head of the American Church.

The Establishment Clause forbade Congress (and now the states, thanks to the 14th amendment) from setting up a national church - like the Church of England. That's what they meant.

They did NOT mean that the US government shouldn't invoke God or encourage religion and morality in general. If they did, then George Washington broke that in his Inaugural Address, his Thanksgiving Proclamation, and his Farewell Address - to name just THREE examples.