Words, lacking definition, context, and full knowledge of the intent of the writer have no meaning, except in the eyes of the reader, and ears of the listener, and the intended communication in itself may be fully failed. While you can claim to know the full meaning and intent of the framers, you are lacking proof. A repetitive quoting of the words of the constitution as proof, is synonymous with those who quote scripture as proof. That is why the court will hear arguments from two sides, both sides claiming constitutional expertise and some privilege of understanding which is not really there. Are you a constitutional law expert? What constitutes being an expert in constitutional law anyway? The "non experts" voted in the "experts?" Are you the author of the constitution? I am none of the above, with full admission. In the final analysis, it is not the 200 year old words or parchment that matter, nor the intent of the founders directly as we can never know their thoughts beyond their recorded actions and printed words, but the intent of our current framers, i.e. the court and the will of the people to amend the words or the constitution that matters. In either case, whatever the decision, I am sure that the populace will be divided like pie with the judicial decision, and that the smallest slice of pie will likely be the very first eaten.
Hear, hear. Ironic that Zzzzz invokes majority consensus now, when it is convenient for him, yet on the issue of Iraq/war on terror, capitalism, Pat Tilman, or any other popularly supported American activity, he denigrates the common mob and views their opinion as so much worthless trash. The same man who is now judging a belief based on it being "minority" and held by "outsiders", is at the same time recommending "benign dictatorship" as a superior form of government, and supporting dissent, socialism, and other activities that are clearly outside the mainstream. Rights matter when applied to foreigners, preferably non-caucasians, especially in the Middle East, and definitely if they are blowing up civilians or shooting at American soldiers. But back home, applied to law-abiding people whose ancestors have been here for centuries, suddenly rights are not an issue. No, the rule of the mob must be respected. Religious imposition, in flagrant contradiction of the separation of church and state, must be enforced. Of course, if state schools started indoctrinating children by demanding they recite a pledge towards capitalism and free enterprise - to which you will find far less such complaints amongst the Founding Fathers as exist with respect to enforced religion - no doubt Zzzzz would complain about this unjustified and immoral brainwashing. But, because the brainwashing and peer pressure supports a pet belief of his, he has no problem with it. I find this to be a very irreligious view. Did not God and Jesus teach equal respect for peers, logical consistency, and universal morality, over selfishness, vested interests, and inconsistent hypocrisy and double standards? Either it is right to indoctrinate people in belief systems or it is not. Either it is right to give a "liberal" (i.e. wide-ranging, open-minded) education, or it is right to give a one-sided mind-controlling education, as in the Middle East. Which way does Zzzzz want it? I now understand why the Greeks invented the word "sophist". I recommend that Zzzzz study another instrument of American populism - the lynch mob - and hope that one does not descend upon him any time soon.
Your argument suggests that there is no definition in any words or sentence until someone adds it. But you do have words, context, definition, meanings in the words of the Pledge and the Constitution. What is the definition and context which you do not understand in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The English language changes ,it is dynamic, I agree. But there are no arrangements or meanings of words in that sentence which should cause or communicate confusion, unless of course someone wanted them to, for their own reasons of course.
So I take it that on those standards, you pay no attention to the Bible? English was a clearly defined language by the late 18th century. The context in which the Constitution was written is fairly clear from historical knowledge of the era, as recorded in numerous primary sources. Knowledge of the intent of the writer is derived from their many writings outside of the Constitution, and their general behaviour, and attitudes thus implied. Plainly comprehensible English is plainly comprehensible English, regardless of your personal views. The fact is, you are a grotesque hypocrite who never applies the same standards of proof to your own beliefs as you do to those which you oppose. Until this double standard is removed, your credibility ranks roughly in line with the most base and two-faced rantings of the corrupt politician, the philanderer, or the con man.
The majority consensus is a fact of a democracy. Nearly everyone invokes it when their side is the majority, and denounces it when they are in the minority. Firstly, I see you quoted me. If you are going to quote me, please quote me in full context and meaning. I do believe that a benign dictatorship can be a superior form of government, if that government does in fact produce a greater amount of benefit to the citizens and society at large than does a democracy. My argument is that a form of government is as evolved as the people who constitute it and the people the government serves. I will admit without question that the military is most effective because it is not a democracy, but rather a dictatorship. So the concept of a dictatorship in certain situations makes sense. The issues always come down not to the form of government, but to the manner in which a government wields its power for the good of the people. In a family with several small children to be raised, it has been shown that a democracy of votes by the entire family including the children is not as nearly effective for raising those children as allowing the parents to be in full control. Similarly, if we give power to the Iraq people, and free elections they vote in Saddam Hussein as their president, the U.S. would step in to disallow that decision, as the people would have shown they are not yet grown up enough for our idea of democracy. If I had a choice of a superior intelligence dictating the best course of action, or the will of a bunch of half wits, I would choose the superior intelligence. Secondly, the question of a pledge itself, nor of money itself is at not at hand, not indoctrination of capitalism or the "American Way." The questions is should the word God be removed from the pledge or the money we use. The question to me is what harm is done by using the word God, and I have yet to see any damages from the use of the word God. Certainly, there are many who said the word God in the pledge when young, who are now atheists, so apparently just saying the word God is not sufficient, nor is the Government capable of establishing a religion on that basis alone. I have mentioned before, when I see constitutional rights of citizens infringed, I will side with the oppressed, but in this case I don't see the damage nor the right of atheist thought prohibited. You only now understand why the Greeks coined the word Sophist? Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
To be perfectly effective in carrying out the letter of the law as written in those days, if not the spirit of law or the wishes of the framers, we would have to return to those days, the exact use of language of those days, the political climate of those days, have conversations with the framers to ask questions an get clarification of ideas and points etc. in order to even begin to try and replicate what the original words truly meant then and the full intentions of the framers, and then the problem of how to bring that into the here and now of an America that bears little resemblance in size, power, diversity, and wealth to the America of the 13 colonies. As that is not possible nor practical, nor reasonable, the best we can do is apply some common sense to the wishes of the framers, and the will of the people today. What is most important, the wishes of the framers or the words used? What matters, the spelling of the words, or the intent of the words and the principle behind it? The framers themselves allowed for amendment as part of the constitution, as an admission of a lack of perfection of the constitution as initially written, and as an allowance for the will of the people to effect change. What exactly were they wanting to communicate in the document? Exclusion of the word God? Or exclusion of the government from establishing a specific state religion or religious practices that would endanger the rights of the citizens to be free to practice their own religion or non religion of their choosing? I will agree with not having religious thought, especially of the morally self righteous type that would trample upon the rights of others because they believe themselves chosen by God to do so. However, the word God itself has none of the consequences as used in the pledge nor on our money as does establishment of a state religion as seen historically on the populace. It is a practical matter, as law itself should be.
What exactly were they wanting to communicate in the document? Exclusion of the word God? Or exclusion of the government from establishing a specific state religion or religious practices that would endanger the rights of the citizens to be free to practice their own religion or non religion of their choosing? You ask me what were the framers wanting to communicate. The only way for them to let me and you know what, was by deliberately writing down the words to convey their meaning to us. They did that. It is unmistakable what they wanted to convey in that sentence. If it is not please show where it is not. All you have offered so far is that the word God is not a religious word.. It is hard to see how you will convince many of that idea. You are living under ... what...trusting in ...what ...anything at all. That is not a Pledge. And it is very unwise to trust in anything at all. I will agree with not having religious thought, especially of the morally self righteous type that would trample upon the rights of others because they believe themselves chosen by God to do so. in "God We Trust" and "under God" does just that very thing. It wasn't there. Government put it there, unconstitutionally. Take away that phrase and the trampling that was done is undone. The Government imposed religious endorsement, something which the framers made clear they didn't agree with. If the framers meant something else, please show what is not clear about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.". However, the word God itself has none of the consequences as used in the pledge nor on our money as does establishment of a state religion as seen historically on the populace. So people have to be persecuted by religion before you define religion as having consequences. The nation is no more sophisticated than that? It is a practical matter, as law itself should be. Political matter. The words were unconstitutionally inserted due to politics. The Constitution was not.
You ask me what were the framers wanting to communicate. The only way for them to let me and you know what, was by deliberately writing down the words to convey their meaning to us. They did that. It is unmistakable what they wanted to convey in that sentence. If it is not please show where it is not. All you have offered so far is that the word God is not a religious word.. It is hard to see how you will convince many of that idea. You are living under ... what...trusting in ...what ...anything at all. That is not a Pledge. And it is very unwise to trust in anything at all. I think you confuse the English language with mathematics. Miscommunication and misunderstand happens all the time between the living, not to mention the over 200 year old words of the dead. Do you know for a fact that we are not living under God? I live under a roof, above that sky, above that space, and beyond that, what? The unknown. As we have not found an end to the physical limits of the universe, the end of the universe is unknown. For you God is an unknown, so to say that we are living under an unknown is not inaccurate. Why is an unknown, i.e. God, so threatening to you? in "God We Trust" and "under God" does just that very thing. It wasn't there. Government put it there, unconstitutionally. Take away that phrase and the trampling that was done is undone. Explain what rights have been violated? You have a right to ignore, not say, not touch, nor believe in the word or concept of God? Where are you forced to have a faith or belief in God, or someone elses understanding of God? Where are the rights trampled? The Government imposed religious endorsement, something which the framers made clear they didn't agree with. If the framers meant something else, please show what is not clear about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The government added the word God, which you claim is religious endorsement, to which I have made an argument that adding the word God is not a religious endorsement. So people have to be persecuted by religion before you define religion as having consequences. The nation is no more sophisticated than that? People were persecuted by people, not God. People were persecuted by religions, not by the word God. The word God and the word religion/or people who belong to a particular religious belief are not synonymous. Political matter. The words were unconstitutionally inserted due to politics. The Constitution was not. Politics is always practical. It is the process of power by the majority in this case, here in America. Were you king, then you could make law. Besides, where is it written that it takes a constitutional amendment to insert the word God into the pledge or printed on money? By the way, you never answered the following question: Are you an American citizen, living in America?
Hi Zz, In the context of the furious raging from different ideologues, I kind of like your paragraph mentioning the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Going back to the 18-th century, at least two major revolutions took place near its end. Historians of the US Constitution consider its main spiritual father to be the Frenchman Montesquieu. Most well read framers of the constitution, if not all, were familiar with his work: "De l'Esprit des Lois" (about the Spirit of the Law). Another poster pointed to this period in recalling the consensus about religious matters as expressed by Benjamin Franklin. It must be said that the young US sailed remarkably well over the next 200+ years. The misfortune of the civil war was overcome without having to overthrow the constitution. Things got settled under it. The other great revolution of 1789 was the French revolution. It cannot be said that Montesquieu left a great impression on the French. French kids these days remember him in school (if they do at all) for his "Lettres Persanes", a fancy work that he himself did not label as his most important one. At the time of the French revolution, the religious consensus of Benjamin Franklin was not existent at all in that country. Virulent anticlericalism was the rule. Nazi crimes like Oradour happened already 200 years ago in an almost identical manner in some French provincial villages (Vendée). Only a few years after this glorious discovery of "Les Droits de l'Homme", the adventurer Napoleon committed the rape of Europe causing again many innocent victims, also among the French. Not wanting to dwell on the continuation of misfortunes over the following centuries, let me come back to law. The French now call their state "La Cinquième République" ie. they had to do things five times over again since the events of 1789. One could also say a few things about the German Empire. For simplicity, let's not bring in the Austrian Empire which was certainly linked to this. Hitler loved to call his conglomerate: "Das Dritte Reich". Counting right, the Germans are now in their fourth edition, courtesy of the US. As a footnote, it can be said that the scourge of the French revolution has been demonstrated to have had its connections to several occult societies conspiring from all over Europe. The Austrian Imperial justice dealt with some of these. Let's not even dwell upon the mess in the Eastern regions of Europe, not spiritually unconnected to the "great tradition". So Americans, things have not been that bad for you. Don't start playing with fire. Read George Washington's Farewell Address once more. Think about what Ben thought and wrote in his days. Don't let the evil spirits destroy you. It happened to other people before you! Be good, nononsense
I think you confuse the English language with mathematics. Miscommunication and misunderstand happens all the time between the living, not to mention the over 200 year old words of the dead. Then you think incorrectly. I asked you a question. It is unmistakable what they wanted to convey in that sentence alive or dead, old or new.. If it is not please show where it is not. It is curious how the words of the dead are crystal clear to me whilst the words of the living Optional 777 offer naught but miscommunication misunderstanding and confusion. Do you know for a fact that we are not living under God? I live under a roof, above that sky, above that space, and beyond that, what? The unknown. As we have not found an end to the physical limits of the universe, the end of the universe is unknown. The word God is not unknown. It is a religious word. Religious endorsement by government is unconstitutional. The Constitution states that as so. If it does not ,show how. For you God is an unknown, so to say that we are living under an unknown is not inaccurate Why is an unknown, i.e. God, so threatening to you?. The unknown you refer to is a religious word. It is unconstitutional for government to endorse religion Endorsement of religion by using a religious word or words is unconstitutional. It sounds to me that the word God threatens you more than it does me. Such a defence of its use although it is unconstitutional , suggests the removal of it makes you feel threatened. "..especially of the morally self righteous type that would trample upon the rights of others because they believe themselves chosen by God to do so." Explain what rights have been violated? You have a right to ignore, not say, not touch, nor believe in the word or concept of God? Where are you forced to have a faith or belief in God, or someone elses understanding of God? Where are the rights trampled? You are asking a question of your own question. Work it out for yourself. Unconstitutional law is a violation of everyone's rights. The government added the word God, which you claim is religious endorsement, to which I have made an argument that adding the word God is not a religious endorsement. Your argument is God is not a religious word. That is not correct. Therefore it is more of a contentious statement, until you can show how the word God is not a religious word (LOL you will continue to struggle with that one). An argument in support of God not being a religious endorsement, requires more than you just saying God is not a religious word.. The word God and the word religion/or people who belong to a particular religious belief are not synonymous God and religion are synonymous. Check it out for yourself. If you think they are not, show me how they are not. So far, all you have done, is simply repeat that incorrect statement of your own. Politics is always practical. It is the process of power by the majority in this case, here in America. Were you king, then you could make law. What are you talking about ? Besides, where is it written that it takes a constitutional amendment to insert the word God into the pledge or printed on money? Right here...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." You will need a constitutional amendment to insert the word God in order for it not to be unconstitutional. That's why the insertion is unconstitutional. By the way, you never answered the following question: Are you an American citizen, living in America? Now you are looking rattled. Just like the old Optional 777, ART, FoFum whatever and now zzzzzz. Why the big emphasis? You feel you are cornered so your reaction is to 'make it personal'? I guess just like the bigoted statement at the beginning of all this that tries to separate Americans from Americans, because one group of Americans thinks theirs are the only ideas that can be American. I think I have given a short personal antecedence somewhere since being a member of this board. So go look it up. Unlike you, I have no other alias and do not change identity every two minutes, through embarrassment or from getting banned. By the way you never answered my question which, unlike yours, is to do with the thread's topic. The government is involving itself in religious endorsement. That is unconstitutional. If it is not, show me where - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - is unclear.