posted
Hm.. what the Republican party has done to protect the rights of homosexuals... er, as opposed to the rights of everybody else? As though homosexuals have 'different' rights?
Well, I just read in the newspaper the other day about this gay man and his friend out west somewhere (CA?) who were being chased by a group of.. well, some idiots who get their jollies by beating up on gay people.
These guys were threatened with death by the gang, and were almost certainly in danger of losing their lives, all things being equal.
However, all things weren't equal. One of the gay men had a concealed carry permit. In plain view of the punks, he drew his weapon. The attackers then quickly became retreaters (no shots were fired).
The Republican party supports the ability and the right of that gay man to defend himself and his friend. the Democratic party would have left them defenseless, a position that would have most likely have resulted in their deaths.
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
posted
Yes. If it had happened in a non-Constitution-loving-gun-owning country, he (and every other gay man) would have likely been killed years ago.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
Germany tried it once, Liam. Along with the Jews and the gypsies, you know.
Really, one of the best ways for a minority to protect its own rights is for it to be capable of self-defense when attacked.
Back on topic:
I heard someone today say that this faith-based program might actually BE the best way for the Republicans to make inroads into the African-American community, since churches, and the programs they offer, play an important role in much of the black community.
Maybe THAT'S why so many Democrats are ranting about it.
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
I see it as an attempt to grab at the Christian and minority votes for the '04 election.
If they are all treated equally there shouldn't be a problem. But since it can not work on an equal basis it will cause a problem.
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them
"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV
posted
Yet, still, does the support of the African-American community make it any more/less Consitutional? No one has yet answered this question. Thank you very much.
The Supreme Court has given broad meaning to the Establisment Clause is modern times, reading it as requiring an almost complete seperation of church and state. School prayer cases illustrate how the SC, despite of majority sentiments, has INISTED that the government stay OUT OF RELIGION.
Engel v Vitale (1962), the SC ruled that the daily reading of a non-demoniational prayer was unconstitutional.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the SC ruled that bible reading in a PA school district was unconstitutional.
In Alabama, Wallace v Jaffree (1985), that a moment of silence for meditation or prayer was also unconstitutional.
The SC repeatedly has shown that it believes the Establishment Clause on the First Ammendment mandates Government neutrality toward religion.
Therefore, while certain Republicans in here like to cry and whine about how the Dems are upset because the Republicans are making moves on the black voters, those same Republicans (who bitch about everything illegal the Dems do) seem to forget that they're perfectly willing to break the "law of the land." Please explain this, because I certainly can't.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]
posted
Well, we've already answered the question repeatedly, but, oh well. Once more...
The SC repeatedly has shown that it believes the Establishment Clause on the First Ammendment mandates Government neutrality toward religion.
NEUTRALITY. Meaning that you can't choose EITHER WAY. Making it where religious shcools COULDN'T take vouchers would not be a neutral position.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
You're constantly missing the whole point. Yes, if the Faith program can meet the guidelines provided for by Lemon v Kurtzman, yes, it will be Constitutional.
But you made the assertion that the Faith program has wide support in the black community, and should be accepted by Democrats on those grounds. The question posed was, how does the majority support of any group make such a plan Constitutional? If you're going to respond to that question, please do so instead of dancing around the issue.
Neutrality. Meaning the government can't pass any laws -- OR GET INVOLVED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- regarding funding for religion. If individuals want to give money to a church, or send their kids to a Catholic school, fine, but once the government gets involved, it is no longer neutral, and, IIRC, the voucher thing involves the Gov't on either the local, state, or Federal level. How is that neutral?
(For those who don't know, Chief Justice Berger summed up the government's approach to religion with the Lemon test, where government aid to religious schools is only constitutional if 1) it has a secular purpose, 2) its effect is neither to advance or inhibit religion, and 3) it doesn't entangle government and religious institutions in each other's affairs.)
Now, another good point: how can anyone prove that Bush's plan will meet all three of these?
So, the current questions are:
How does the support alone of the black community make the Faith program more or less Constitutional?
How does Bush's Faith plan not violate the Lemon Test?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]
posted
How does the support alone of the black community make the Faith program more or less Constitutional?
I don't see why it would. Why do you ask? I have heard no one make any such assertion.
How does Bush's Faith plan not violate the Lemon Test?
I deny the validity of the Lemon test, based upon the wording and stated intent of the Consitution.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
Personally, I think that if Jesse Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think. Polling data shows that they support it by a vast majority. If the Democrats shoot this one down, they're toast next time around. Unless, of course, Jessie Jackson finds a way to make it look like the GOP did it...
You made the assertation right here. You make it appear to be a partisan battle (If the Democrats...), while it is in fact a matter of Constitutional Law. Of course, you only see your little (tiny) world the way you want to be (which, incidently, ignores Constitutional procedural law most of the time), so that's kind of interesting.
Er, in simpler terms: it doesn't matter what polls say. It matters what the Supreme Court has ruled.
I deny the validity of the Lemon test, based upon the wording and stated intent of the Consitution.
So, wait, next time we have a gun debate I can challenge the wording and stated intent of the 2nd Ammendment and be right?
WRONG! Omega, it doesn't really matter how you view it, it matters how the Supreme Court views it. And the Supreme Court views that it's gotta pass the Lemon test, so your little bout of self-importance there doesn't really make your point (in fact, your ignorance of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Constitution hurt your argument more than anything else, thank you.)
Oh, BTW: weren't you the one, Omega, who said that illogic isn't a valid debating tactic? Kindly listen to yourself. You wanna make your point? Don't bitch about wording. The Supreme Court has ruled and extrapolated from what was orginally worded. Come up with GOOD reasons why Bush's law would be legal. "Oooh, oooh, the Founding Fathers didn't mean it this way!" isn't a valid debating tactic, thank you.
Now, how does Bush's plan not violate the Lemon test?
And, if it doesn't, as Omega said above, how does the majority support of any group of people make something constitutional when it clearly isn't?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]
posted
It's really quite simple. Prayers and Bible readings in public schools are unconstitutional because they favor a SPECIFIC religion, or having a religion OVER none at all.
BUT, Religious Studies courses exist in public schools all over the country, and are allowed because they favor NO specific religion, and treat religions as historical and cultural phenomena rather than Truth from On High.
Likewise, as long as the money is open to any and all faith-based organizations, AND to secular, non-religious organizations, (any of which it was already open to) there can be no favoritism, and hence no 'establishment.' The resources simply go to those who use them.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing that says that the government can't establish a pool of money from which organizations, religious or not, can draw assistance for promoting charity. PROVIDED that it's not used for religious purposes.
F'rinstance, if Julie and I get that $ from Catholic Charities, it won't be contingent upon my converting to Catholocism, or her going to church more often, therefore it's not for a religious purpose (Oh, they'll probably want us to get married, but we intended to do that all along).
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
Which it is. EVERYTHING is a partisan battle when the Democrats get involved.
while it is in fact a matter of Constitutional Law
Which I had addressed in my previous post. I never said that the statement you're quoting from had anything to do with the Constitutionality of the law.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 01, 2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
