Posted 5 months, 26 days ago in 
Loading ...
I am amazed by the lack of constitutional acumen by the atheists. If they would read the entire first portion of the First Amendment to the Constitution, they would see that their position is in fact unconstitutional. It does not take a great legal mind to see this just common sense.
JIM VIDMAR
Grand Junction
35 Responses to “Atheists need to read entire First Amendment”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Vidmar should look beyond the First Amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment, which conveys those limitations to state and local governments.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uh, scott?
Please quote ‘your version’ of the 14th Amendment.
Mine doesn’t say anything like that.
But, since you are an expert on this subject.
Why were the Southern States allowed to vote on the 13th Amendment, but locked out of congress and denied a vote on the14th Amendment.
And please explain the remark “Ratified Under Duress”.
Thank you so much for your input.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No state shall make of enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This means that lesser government entities cannot infringe on the rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Notice the phrases “any person” and equal protection of the laws”. Nothing is said about minorities having to shut up and accept the rule of the majority. All people. Equal protection.
I can’t speak to states being locked out of the vote. Does that somehow mean that it is not valid? Trying to throw a smokescreen around your losing argument?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 8:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yet another letter writer trying to interpret the First Amendment in regards to government and religion when Jefferson already did this so much better 206 years ago.
People can disagree with Thomas Jefferson all they want but I wish more people would at least be aware of his interpretation, which brought to life the (very real and legal) concept of separation of church and state.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger, what is the ‘established by law’ religion in Mesa County?
Since you seem to be impressed by the words of Jefferson, and the current meaning as defined by the left, do you care about his actions?
From the beginning of the religious colonies that were formed to escape the oppression of “Legal” Church of England, all community meetings were opened with a prayer of thanks and guidance.
This practice continued through the times of Thomas Jefferson and the other Framers of the Constitution, unabated until the last 60 or so years.
Had Mr. Jefferson or any other Framers had a problem with those prayers, or felt the need to be even more specific in this ’separation’ thing, it would have been written into the Constitution.
So, again, what is the “established by law” religion in Mesa County?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
1. That prayers were said in community gatherings throughout history, and that they continue to be today, doesn’t bother me in the least and is not the issue here as I see it
2. I’m sure you would be more than welcome to tell the courts about your take on the “separation THING.” Maybe they will listen.
3. For all practical purposes Mesa County does have an established religion which of course is fundamentalist Christian. I don’t think there are laws stating this in the books yet, but the way things are going I’m sure it will happen very soon. And then you can be happy.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger:
” 3. For all practical purposes Mesa County does have an established religion which of course is fundamentalist Christian. I don’t think there are laws stating this in the books yet, but the way things are going I’m sure it will happen very soon. And then you can be happy. ”
Mesa County is no closer than any other community in the nation.
Mesa county is doing nothing today that they did not do 75 years ago, as far as opening meetings.
I could care less about whether or not they open their meeting with or without a prayer.
My problem is the vocal minority attempting to abridge the “Nor the free exercise thereof” part of the first Amendment.
Something that does not seem to bother you.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Willis:
“Mesa County is no closer than any other community in the nation.”
Bullhockey.
Quoting Willis:
“Something that does not seem to bother you.”
How can one of your hallucinations possibly bother me?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
What part of “the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not the government” is unclear to you?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
” ashhugger
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:46 am PM This User Report this comment
Quoting Willis:
“Mesa County is no closer than any other community in the nation.”
Bullhockey.”
Specifics please.
Exactly which county commissioners are pushing what statute that would create an official religion in Mesa County?
Please quote the commissioners directly where any current, or former, member even mentioned establishing a religion for Mesa County.
Try not to give us any paranoid claptrap as is so frequently used for ‘facts’ on this site.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
uhoh, super brain is back and I must have erred in his eyes.
” Scott
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am PM This User Report this comment
Willis,
What part of “the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not the government” is unclear to you?”
The Bill of Rights Specifically restricts the government from infringing on those Rights granted by the creator as unalienable.
Which part did you fail to read or understand?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I didn’t claim that any county commissioners were taking any official action toward establishing an official religion.
I just observe a rabid, slobbering fundamentalist fervor among many citizens here fostering a climate where this would not be inconceivable somewhere down the road. You want evidence, just read the slew of letters and comments here. My favorite is the one who says I don’t have any freedom from his religion.
You are welcome to view this as “paranoia.” I call it having eyes, ears, and a brain.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, it’s paranoia.
But, when it shows up on the agenda or the ballot, feel free to get back to me and I’ll help you fight back them rascally religious freaks.
Until then, when a prayer rears it’s ugly head, change channels until it’s over.
It is other Citizens availing themselves of the Right to exercise their religious FREEDOMS.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, it’s not paranoia. But of course we must agree to disagree (if you are capable of that).
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is interesting to note that many on these boards not only have differing perspectives, which is all to the good, but that some are purely “emotional reactionaries”, unable to distinguish between disagreement on issues, and an attack on their person.
Such is unfortunate, and is an indication of what we can term an “absolutist” mentality; i.e. a closed mind incapable of even considering other points of view on any issue.
Those frequently represent cases of “self-indoctrination.” And that comes about through a lack of perspective engendered by limiting sources of information such as listening to or reading only that which represent their point of view. While that may be easier, and much more comfortable, it is not something that leads to the expansion of any mind.
Recently, the Daily Sentinel ran an editorial article about the the value or capacity of the “aging” mind. It is an opinion with which I agreed.
The problem is not the “mind” itself, it is most frequently what is placed in that mind. If one reads only one book, or even many books saying the same thing, or interpreting everything with the same narrow perspective (quite often personal value judgments), then one cannot possible be altering perspective, but merely reinforcing an already existing one. In no way can that be considered “learning” or expansion of the mind or intellect.
We are all familiar with the term parochialism. That is but a perspective limited by lack of exposure to environment, usually physical. There is another type of parochialism, and that is intellectual parochialism, one that is really a self-imposed limitation brought about by limiting one’s exposure to new concepts and ideas, whether one agrees with them or not.
What motivation there is in doing so, only the individual can answer. Could it be laziness, or “fear of being wrong” perhaps? Or, could it merely be a lack of intellectual curiosity?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The Bill of Rights Specifically restricts the government from infringing on those Rights granted by the creator as unalienable.
Which part did you fail to read or understand?”
Where does the Bill of Rights say anything about the Creator? Mistaking the Constitution for the Declaration of Independance again? (By the way, the rights mentioned in the Declaration as being inalienable were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing there about freedom of religion.)
Nevertheless, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights are to the citizens, not the government itself.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting points RLaitres.
Even those of us who do conscientiously try to read things we don’t necessarily agree with, rarely do so with an open mind but rather with the intention of seeing how that offending author is “wrong.”
I for one am guilty of this.
But sometimes a window will open to at least truly understanding where the other person is coming from, and maybe even a shift in one’s hard set opinions will occur. I have experienced this a couple of times recently reading George Will’s columns, for example.
I would also argue that there is a place for hard set ideology; if for no other reason it appears to be a very human trait and a mark of our diversity.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting myself:
“I would also argue that there is a place for hard set ideology; if for no other reason it appears to be a very human trait and a mark of our diversity.”
But on the other hand the same could be said of war. Hmmmmmm …
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, one more time,
” “The Bill of Rights Specifically restricts the government from infringing on those Rights granted by the creator as unalienable.”
The key wording here is simple and not easily misunderstood, but somehow you cannot read and understand simple phrases.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY **** RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT**** FROM INFRINGING…
Did yelling in your eyes help any?
And, as to your last remark;
” Nevertheless, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights are to the citizens, not the government itself.”
The Bill of rights does not “GRANT” anything.
The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES pre-existing RIGHTS.
If you were a true scholar of the Constitution you would have already known that and not made such a novice mistake.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger states that “there is a place for hard set ideology.” There may be, but one must also pay attention to the scope of that ideology. Most “hard core” beliefs (sometimes known as core values), or ideology if you will, apply but to our own person (in fact most of them do), and that is where they need to remain. I would submit the following analogy in that regard.
If one has two concentric circles, one 1″ in diameter, and the other 100 miles in diameter, and if all I know lays within that 1″ circle, am I able, with any degree of certitude that I am “right” if I were to project those values outward beyond that 1″ circle. Very clearly, I would not, as I would know nothing beyond my very limited knowledge.
Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, recognized that limitation in his treatise “Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals” when, after studying the issue of “morals”, and realizing that he was dealing with the world of abstracts, cautioned us not to attempt to apply such theoretical constructs to the real world. Many, I am very much afraid, that in their zealotry, forget the advice of much wiser heads.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, did you miss my second thoughts on that “ideology” statement? I think I get it. But I appreciate the analogy etc … it is interesting as always.
What I was really trying to get at, is that people should not be SO open minded that the individual would become diluted and we would up a mass of one mind, like the Borg (on Star Trek TNG).
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “I could care less about whether or not they open their meeting with or without a prayer.”
Misuse of the English language again WLJ. I suppose you meant to say, “I could not care less…” As it stands the expression means exactly the opposite of what I am sure you intended. As written, it means you care (but perhaps could care less than at present).
This is a common mistake of the novice at English grammar.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
How sweet of you to try to correct me gene.
But let me assure you that by assuming I used the English Language incorrectly, you made an ass of your self.
I could care less, but I don’t.
I could care more, but I don’t.
And you are just as smart as you can be.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger responded with “that people should not be SO open minded that the individual would become diluted…” In that he is quite correct. Every individual must stand for something if he/she is to have any character at all, and thereby an individual existence and personality uniquely theirs.
However, that is an individual responsibility, probably the ultimate one. But, the only way that can happen requires that one establish one’s identity consciously, and begin with the very simple question: Who and what am I, really?
To do otherwise is to allow oneself to be defined by others as to who and what they are as a person, and therefore allowing others to control them, that in order to conform to another’s standards in order to please them.
It would seem to me that such is not much of an existence, except physically perhaps.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” “The Bill of Rights Specifically restricts the government from infringing on those Rights granted by the creator as unalienable.”
The key wording here is simple and not easily misunderstood, but somehow you cannot read and understand simple phrases.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY **** RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT**** FROM INFRINGING…”
Exactly my point. And since sectarian city council sponsored prayer as part of their meeting infringes on those rights, it is unconstitutional. Glad we agree.
“And, as to your last remark;
” Nevertheless, the rights granted by the Bill of Rights are to the citizens, not the government itself.”
The Bill of rights does not “GRANT” anything.
The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES pre-existing RIGHTS.
If you were a true scholar of the Constitution you would have already known that and not made such a novice mistake.”
Really? Pre-existing where? The Declaration of Independance certainly didn’t spell them out. Are you sure I’m the only novice?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott said:
” THE BILL OF RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY **** RESTRICTS THE GOVERNMENT**** FROM INFRINGING…”
Exactly my point. And since sectarian city council sponsored prayer as part of their meeting infringes on those rights, it is unconstitutional. Glad we agree. ”
No scott, the only thng we agree on is your failure to understand that a ‘prayer’ does NOT establish a religion.
The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that such an invocation does not violate the ‘establishment’ clause.
Your premise is based on falsehoods and lies.
Yeah, you pretty much are the novice on this subject. Or, at the very least, ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, (pick your favorite term).
Like gene, you are as smart as you can be.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 12:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, before you spend much more time on this subject, might I direct your attention to the editorial page of the Daily Sentinel?
If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.
I know that you don’t much like reading stuff with facts and data, but please give it the ‘old college try’.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No scott, the only thng we agree on is your failure to understand that a ‘prayer’ does NOT establish a religion.”
It does if it mentions a specific deity. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983).
“The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that such an invocation does not violate the ‘establishment’ clause.”
Unless it mentions a specific deity, which the vast majority of the city council prayers have done. See the case mentioned above.
“Your premise is based on falsehoods and lies.”
Not at all, but yours is based on misunderstandings.
“Yeah, you pretty much are the novice on this subject. Or, at the very least, ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated, (pick your favorite term).”
Projecting much?
“Like gene, you are as smart as you can be.”
Being compared to Classof52 is a compliment. Thanks.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Scott, before you spend much more time on this subject, might I direct your attention to the editorial page of the Daily Sentinel?
If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.
I know that you don’t much like reading stuff with facts and data, but please give it the ‘old college try’.”
Oh, you mean the one that had nothing to to with the actual issue? The one that talked about the individuals right to pray wherever they want and be led by clergy of their choice, which no one is threatening in any way? That letter?
Where does the Bill of Rights “guarantee” the right to be led in a sectarian prayer during a city council mneeting? Care to point out that Amendment?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor scott.
Can’t read and understand simple words.
I said; ” “Scott, before you spend much more time on this subject, might I direct your attention to the editorial page of the Daily Sentinel?
If you scroll down to May21, 2008, you will find an editorial on this subject.”
The key word was ‘editorial’.
Your response? ” Oh, you mean the one that had nothing to to with the actual issue? The one that talked about the individuals right to pray wherever they want and be led by clergy of their choice, which no one is threatening in any way? That letter? ”
No scott, I said ‘editorial’.
But, here is the operative sentences written by the editorial staff at the Daily Sentinel.
” While our public servants could be spending time doing business that is in the best interest of all of us, they will, instead, be debating the pointless issue of whether they should continue to pray before they meet. They will dispatch their lawyers to do research. All of that is a giant waste of time and resources.
We can save them a little time and money. The Supreme Court has already decided this issue. It did so 25 years ago in a case known as Marsh v. Chambers.
The claim in that case was identical to that being made by the Mesa County atheists: Public prayer before a legislative body is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.
To that claim, the court said: Hogwash.
The court said the “unique history” of prayer before legislative bodies “leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.” It was, after all, the same men who wrote the Establishment Clause who paid for chaplains to offer prayers before Congress.
What’s more there’s little chance that ruling will ever be overturned. Charles Haynes, a scholar at the Freedom Forum in Nashville, said the ruling is unambiguous, and as such is likely to withstand any attempts to challenge it.
So there’s little doubt that an invocation before a public legislative body begins its work passes constitutional muster. And that’s precisely what the Grand Jucntion City Council does before its meetings. It has an invocation. There is no requirement for anybody to pay attention to it, although we suspect there are a fair number of people, including council members, who do. ”
And the key words in that were;
” The claim in that case was identical to that being made by the Mesa County atheists: Public prayer before a legislative body is a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.”
The claim was IDENTICAL scott.
Unless you feel tough enough to call the editorial staff a bunch of idiot, morons, or liars.
I disagree with them more than I agree with them, but they seldom fail on factual information.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
My bad. I looked at the wrong letter. (See how easy it is to admit when you’re wrong?)
However, the editorial in question did not quote the part of the Marsh decision that just as unambiguously stated that the prayers in question must be non-sectarioan in nature - in other words, not mentioning specific deities. This has been upheld in numerous cases since.
And if you’ll notice, I have never claimed that the prayers must stop. I have only said that they are unconstitutional, which they are because the majority reference a specific deity.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “The court said the “unique history” of prayer before legislative bodies “leads us to accept the interpretation of the First Amendment draftsmen who saw no real threat to the Establishment Clause arising from the practice of prayer similar to that now challenged.” It was, after all, the same men who wrote the Establishment Clause who paid for chaplains to offer prayers before Congress.”
What you conveniently left out Johnson is that the Supreme court decisions specifically prohibit invocations which promote one religion over another. Mentions of Jesus for example are prohibited but routinely violated by those who don’t care about the law, just promoting their own religious cult. Also the courts rulings have noted that the deity of religions other than the Judeo/Christian god must be admitted if called for. I propose that we also pray in these meetings to Allah, the Wiccan deity and other deities who have adherents among the taxpayers in this county. As you pointed out no one has to pay any attention to these prayers, so let’s have them!
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh gene? are you listening(reading)?
Is it possible that your adoration of anti-Christianity has led you to the depths of dumb?
Are you not capable of comprehending because of your addiction to refuring everything I say?
Whatever the excuse du jour is…
” But, here is the operative sentences written by the editorial staff at the Daily Sentinel. ”
” Unless you feel tough enough to call the editorial staff a bunch of idiot, morons, or liars.
I disagree with them more than I agree with them, but they seldom fail on factual information. ”
You don’t have a problem with anything I said, but what the editorial board said.
Feel free to attend every meeting and make your demands for equal time in public and on record.
In fact, instead of all this whining on here, go show the world what an upstanding American Citizen you really are.
Put in an appearance and make your demands known to the entire free world.
It will be a good thing gene, just DO IT!
(you know you want to Gene. Why not obey that little voice in your head that keeps telling you to do the right thing?)
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes you were quoting the editorial, but you indicated that you were in agreement with it, hence, my reminder that it was a selective quote of what the court actually said.
whining? Why do you feel the need to continually use pejorative words about those who disagree with you? It must be that little voice in your head.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
But you are going to attend the Council meetings and voice your complaints are you not?
I mean, all this angst this whole issue has caused you it’s only logical that you make an appearance and let your opinions be known to the commissioners.
And doing it in public removes any cover they may enjoy if you notify them by phone or whatever other means.
I really think your should go for it gene.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.