Nativity Scene/Atheist Sign Controversy

[Wessexman]

It was a statement issued by SCOTUS about the establishment clause. And frankly, religious desplays are establishment, maybe not to a great extent but it none-the-less is. It's finacially supporting one religion which the SC ruled unconstitional. Rightfully so.

That is judicial activism. It isn't in the constitution itself. Its merit is a different discussion all together. We were talking about what the constitution itself says.

 

[Unrein]

That is judicial activism. It isn't in the constitution itself. Its merit is a different discussion all together. We were talking about what the constitution itself says.

The constitution says there is to be no religious establishment, which, to a lesser degree this is. And the SC judgement is the law none-the-less. There shall be no favoring of one religion to another.

 

[Wessexman]

Your prejudging over religious views.

Of course. We are talking in general.

 

[Unrein]

Of course. We are talking in general.

That doesn't make any less true (that you are being prejudice).

 

[Wessexman]

The constitution says there is to be no religious establishment, which, to a lesser degree this is.

Establishment means set up a state church, nothing else, it does not mean simple acknowledgement of a religion or even sponsoring a religion in many ways.

And the SC judgement is the law none-the-less. There shall be no favoring of one religion to another.

We were talking about the constitution. The merits of the SC making the constitution mere guidelines to be remade and reshaped at whim is a different discussion.

 

[Wessexman]

That doesn't make any less true (that you are being prejudice).

Of course I am. What of it? It is not always a bad or generally incorrect thing. It does not mean I wouldn't actually look into what an athiest politician actually believed before condemning him. It is just a general disposition.

YOU see, Sir, that in this enlightened age I am bold enough to confess that we are generally men of untaught feelings, that, instead of casting away all our old prejudices, we cherish them to a very considerable degree, and, to take more shame to ourselves, we cherish them because they are prejudices; and the longer they have lasted and the more generally they have prevailed, the more we cherish them-Edmund Burke

 

[Unrein]

Of course I am. What of it?

Nothing of it, that's it.

It is not always a bad or generally incorrect thing.

It is though.

It does not mean I wouldn't actually look into what an athiest politician actually believed before condemning him. It is just a general disposition.

Then there is no point or reason in prejudging or generalizing.

 

[Wessexman]

It is though.

No it isn't as long as it doesn't cloud the judgement completely. In the storms of real life one would be shipwrecked quickly without the saefty of prejudice.

Then there is no point or reason in prejudging or generalizing.

Sure there is, so one has a convenient starting point for the complexity of real life. It should not make one closed minded but it is often a boon.

 

[Unrein]

No it isn't as long as it doesn't cloud the judgement completely.

If it clouds your judgement AT ALL (which it will), it's a bad thing.

In the storms of real life one would be shipwrecked quickly without the saefty of prejudice.

example?

Sure there is, so one has a convenient starting point for the complexity of real life. It should not make one closed minded but it is often a boon.

You have a convenient starting point in the character of the individual.

 

[Wessexman]

If it clouds your judgement AT ALL (which it will), it's a bad thing.

No, often the positives outweigh the negatives. it can be a careful balancing act though.

example?

The Law, if most men decided only to follow it after they submitted it to their individual viewpoint on whether it was legitimate then society would unravel. Now I'm certainly not a man into following blind state authority but I do realise we cannot completely leave it up to the rational calculations of individuals whether they follow any governmental or social authority at all.

You have a convenient starting point in the character of the individual.

No you don't. You usually cannot know his intimate character too well and prejudice can hold you in good stead sometimes until you know him better.

 

[Unrein]

No, often the positives outweigh the negatives. it can be a careful balancing act though.

There are no positives in prejudging. It's purely ignorance.

The Law, if most men decided only to follow it after they submitted it to their individual viewpoint on whether it was legitimate then society would unravel. Now I'm certainly not a man into following blind state authority but I do realise we cannot completely leave it up to the rational calculations of individuals whether they follow any governmental or social authority at all.

That has nothing to do with prejudice.

No you don't. You usually cannot know his intimate character too well and prejudice can hold you in good stead sometimes until you know him better.

No. If you cannot know his intimate character then your prejudice of him is going to be flawed all the more.

 

[Wessexman]

There are no positives in prejudging. It's purely ignorance.

Rubbish, society could not long survive if men could not call on the reserves of habit and prejudice. Everything can't be up to the constant rational calculation of individuals, particularly when haste is needed.

That has nothing to do with prejudice.

It is a prejudgment and a habit certainly.

No. If you cannot know his intimate character then your prejudice of him is going to be flawed all the more.

Rubbish sometimes you need to make decisions.

 

[Tucker Case]

The way I see it, as an atheist, is that if the nativity scene is on state or Municiple property, big deal. If it is on federal property, it is a problem.

I wouldn't care if Chicago had a giant Nativity scene under the Picasso at the Daley center.

But I also wouldn't care if there was a great big "There is no God" sign placed there.

That is OK.

The First ammendment prevents the federal goverment from establishing a religion.

To me, this means that it cannot promote any religion or give preference to any religion.

I believe that a state can and should be allowed to forgo federal monies for its schools and then teach whatever they want in their schools. But the must forgo federal funding to do so.

If they don't, then there is a federal nature to the schooling and thus, there can be no establishment of a religion.

But I think ALL secondary schools should have an elective world religions class where tenents from all faiths are given equal teaching time and that this class should be an elective.

 

[Tucker Case]

At the same time, laws preventing Atheists from holding office are unconstitutional, IMO.

People should be allowed to vote against the atheist if they choose to.

 

[Unrein]

Rubbish, society could not long survive if men could not call on the reserves of habit and prejudice. Everything can't be up to the constant rational calculation of individuals, particularly when haste is needed.

You would stand a fairer chance defending stereotypes than prejudice. Prejudice is utterly groundless where-as stereotyping is at least based off of something substantial.

Name an instance you need to prejudge someone because time is SO damn short someone might DIE if you cannot instantly have a random unfounded assesment of someone you've never met or seen before in your life.

 

[Cephus]

At the same time, laws preventing Atheists from holding office are unconstitutional, IMO.

They are expressly unconstitutional, yet there are still states out there with local constitutions that require religious belief in order to hold public office.

 

[wyoguy]

They are expressly unconstitutional, yet there are still states out there with local constitutions that require religious belief in order to hold public office.

If it's right there, in the language of the State Constitutions, how is it unConstitutional? Federally, the First Amendment doesn't address this at all. All it does is prohibit the legislative branch from creating a federal church. It doesn't even include the other two branches and it darn sure doesn't include State Legislatures.

Besides, if it was so all-fired unConstitutional, do you think that this entire country has been waiting over two centuries for some schmuck on an internet debate forum to point out it's failure?

What makes people think that the Federal, State, Municipal governments and even the citizens are obliged to overturn centuries of lawful tradition to accommodate the sensitivities of a few back-biters?

Read your State Constitution. If you like what it says, stay put. If you don't, move or support legislation to amend it. Federally, I don't think you stand a snowball's chance of changing the First Amendment.

 

[Wessexman]

You would stand a fairer chance defending stereotypes than prejudice. Prejudice is utterly groundless where-as stereotyping is at least based off of something substantial.

Name an instance you need to prejudge someone because time is SO damn short someone might DIE if you cannot instantly have a random unfounded assesment of someone you've never met or seen before in your life.

If they were wearing a cop uniform and ordered you to do something in an emergency.

You haven't actually argued against me in any real way. You are simply too liberal and universalist to get your head around the fact that holding all social bonds accountable to the rational, individual calculations of each person is a terrible thing for society.

 

[Cephus]

If it's right there, in the language of the State Constitutions, how is it unConstitutional?

Because state constitutions cannot override the National Constitution. When slavery was constitutionally outlawed, the south couldn't simply keep it going by including it in their constitutions. That's not the way it works.

Federally, the First Amendment doesn't address this at all.

I never mentioned the First Amendment at all. The Constitution, in Article VI, Section 3, states:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Therefore, there can be no requirement of religious belief for any public office *ANYWHERE* in the United States, by federal law. Any state which violates this is violating the law.

Not that I'm sure you care.

 

[Unrein]

Therefore, there can be no requirement of religious belief for any public office *ANYWHERE* in the United States, by federal law. Any state which violates this is violating the law.

Not that I'm sure you care.

The main reason the state constitutions of those 7 states haven't changed to reflect the federal constitution is because never in a million years yould those states elect an athiest anyway so that their constitutions would become an issue.

 

[Unrein]

If they were wearing a cop uniform and ordered you to do something in an emergency.

How is that prejudice? That is judgment with substantial evidence affirming your belief.

If your belief was that he was an ass**** BECAUSE he is a cop (before having met him to have any substantial evidence that he is in fact an ass****) THAT would be prejudice.

You haven't actually argued against me in any real way.

You are saying that prejudice is justifible and I'am saying it isn't. This isn't "real" to you?

You are simply too liberal

Now that is prejudice, as well as an ad hominem.

and universalist to get your head around the fact that holding all social bonds accountable to the rational, individual calculations of each person is a terrible thing for society.

I think you believe 'prejudice' is the same thing as 'reaction' when it is not.

 

[Wessexman]

How is that prejudice? That is judgment with substantial evidence affirming your belief.

If your belief was that he was an ass**** BECAUSE he is a cop (before having met him to have any substantial evidence that he is in fact an ass****) THAT would be prejudice.

It is prejudice because it is based on prejudgement. You are obeying him because he is a cop, it is based on past experience or knowledge.

You are saying that prejudice is justifible and I'am saying it isn't. This isn't "real" to you?

No.

Now that is prejudice, as well as an ad hominem.

It sure is.

I think you believe 'prejudice' is the same thing as 'reaction' when it is not.

Prejudice is prejudging or habit, it is little more.

 

[Unrein]

It is prejudice because it is based on prejudgement. You are obeying him because he is a cop, it is based on past experience or knowledge.

That isn't prejudging (at least not neccesarily it isn't).

pre⋅judge   /priˈdʒʌdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pree-juhj] Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -judged, -judg⋅ing. 1. to judge beforehand.
2. to pass judgment on prematurely or without sufficient reflection or investigation.

First definition is a bit ambiguous, judging before what exactly?

But by the second definition, if you see someone with a realistic looking cop uniform and badge, and he is franticly giving you instructions like it is an emergencey, your actions and judgment aren't prejudice if you decide to obey him givin the uniform and badge are quite sufficient.

Prejudice is never necessary or a good thing.

 

[Wessexman]

That isn't prejudging (at least not neccesarily it isn't).

pre⋅judge   /priˈdʒʌdʒ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pree-juhj] Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used with object), -judged, -judg⋅ing. 1. to judge beforehand.
2. to pass judgment on prematurely or without sufficient reflection or investigation.

First definition is a bit ambiguous, judging before what exactly?

But by the second definition, if you see someone with a realistic looking cop uniform and badge, and he is franticly giving you instructions like it is an emergencey, your actions and judgment aren't prejudice if you decide to obey him givin the uniform and badge are quite sufficient.

Prejudice is never necessary or a good thing.

I don't see how any that removes the prejudgement. Prejudice can be a very good thing. You are simply too liberal, too abstractly egalitarian and extremely universalist and rationalist, you cannot comprehend it. This is what PC liberalism does I'm afraid, it ties you in knots.

 

[Cephus]

The main reason the state constitutions of those 7 states haven't changed to reflect the federal constitution is because never in a million years yould those states elect an athiest anyway so that their constitutions would become an issue.

It's simply because they haven't yet been challenged in court. The second they go to the Supreme Court, those constitutions will need to be changed.