The New Improved Ten Commandments

“Dang it Phaedrus - I got to the other side of our building when I realized what you said at 1:26:43.

The Supreme Court is not adding an amendment.

The Supreme Court's job is NOT to make law.

It is to interpret existing law.

That is the whole point of this.”

“Uhhh... Yeah. This will be the first interpretation of the establishment clause in regard to these displays.

Did I say something to make you think I was suggesting otherwise?”

“I think I've been here too long. This thread didn't get a charge out of me. WTF?”

“This one's been extraordinarily civil, Nigal.”

“Wow, so many posts! I guess everyone knows the Ten Commandments.

Actually, I fail to understand all the fuss. Is there something wrong with the Ten Commandments?”

“The first one kind of throws me.”

“Phaedrus: “Uhhh... Yeah. This will be the first interpretation of the establishment clause in regard to these displays.

Did I say something to make you think I was suggesting otherwise?”

Yes. You said "This will BE the precedent"”

“It will be! This has never come before the supeme court before.”

“But Phaedrus. They law is already there. This is not analogous to adding 19th amendment.

Maybe we should re-interpret the 19th amendment? (joking)

Back to the point - The 1st amendment ALREADY had a correct interpretation. WE were arguing what that interpretation was (or so I thought). Now you seem to be arguing we need to change the meaning of the 1st amendment to "fit the times".

What is it you want to do?

If you want to change it - that is not analogous to adding the 19th amendment.

If you want to interpret it, that is why we have to look at precedence (to the amendment), to see what the original intent was. Otherwise, you are revising (changing) it.

Do you want to change the constitution Phaedrus?”

“It has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court before. This is why it's being argued before the supreme court - for a legal interpretation in regard to this situation.

It's setting the precedent. If you end up disagreeing with the supreme court's decsion, then you'll be the one in favor of amending the constitution.”

“Phaedrus - The Supreme Court is NOT supposed to change law. It is supposed to interpret EXISTING law.

If I disagree with the supreme court, it's most likely that the supreme court had too many activist judges on it who were, instead of interpreting EXISTING law (in this case, the way the founding fathers intended it to be read), changing law to fit their agenda.

That is why WE were debating the original intention of the founding fathers.

If you don't think that's relevant, I pray that you never become a supreme court justice.”

“First, I never said it wasn't relevent, just that I don't put as much weight on it as you seem to. The SC will determine, based on their collective judgement, whether the current de facto interpretation of the law is constitutional. If they find it not to be so, it's because of activist judges? Okay. If they find it IS constitutional, can I blame it on religious zeal?

"The founding fathers" argued among themselves about how this was intended to be read, so your assertion of some long-standing unamimous wisdom is a red herring.

I think it's clear that this will be a judgement with a lot of impact, and that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue. I'm not sure there's a lot more to be said, other than "we'll see". Like I said, Sandra Day seems to be the swing vote. God bless America.”

“What the SC is supposed to do is decide what the original intent of the law is. You seem to not want to look at that. Am I wrong? Can we focus on the original intent for this discussion from now on?

re: them arguing - I am not saying there was not disagreement among them. I am saying there was precedent to the rule and they DID have an interpretation collectively as the used religious words (God, creator, etc) in government documents.

re: we'll see - I guess I wasn't so much debating this to see who picks the "final score" correctly, but instead who is taking the side of the constitution itself. I would argue that the SC can be wrong. Yes, their decision BECOMES law, but if they change pre-existing law (as defined by the original intention) then they need to be fired immediately.”

“What the SC is supposed to do is decide what the original intent of the law is. You seem to not want to look at that. Am I wrong?

I think Geobeet addressed this very well.

I am saying there was precedent to the rule and they DID have an interpretation collectively as the used religious words (God, creator, etc) in government documents.

Yeah, They were a group of white men in a fairly homogenous society who were trying to write a document that would sustain a country across the millenia. Most were men of great religious faith due in large part to the times they were born in. Those who argued for a broader interpretation of the establishment clause certainly left the seeds of a larger exclusion between religion and government in their writings. We have to allow the process to come to fruition at some point. The fact that there was a rift between those present at the drafting of the constitution in regard to this issue makes the issue worthy of examination. Tradition is not always "the correct interpretation".

but if they change pre-existing law (as defined by the original intention) then they need to be fired immediately

My argument is that there has been dissention on this from the beginning. If this SC makes a determination on way or the other, good on 'em.”

“Phaedrus - You have made it clear that the "white man" laws of our origins need to be revised. It would have been simpler if you would have just come out and said that from the beginning. If I had known that, I would have categorized you as a rebel against what America stands for and would not have had this debate with you. I am sorry to have wasted our time. I incorrectly assumed the Constitution of the United States meant something to you in regards to this debate. Turns out, you're just interested in changing it. You're right, tradition is not always the correct interpretation - but in this case the original intent is. Anything else should be categorized for what it is, a revolution.

I do hope you have fun in the "United States of Canada".”

“Sarge, the constitution means everything to me in how I think of my country - your interpretation of how much we should revere our tradition doesn't. I've never been one to pretend my country doesn't have flaws; a trait which the shallowest often confuse with a lack of patriotism. To me, America stands for due process and lawful freedoms. Religion has little to do with the traits that I believe make my country great. Original intent toward the establishment clause was mixed, as you well know and acknowledge. The process that our forefathers put in place to decide matters of import such as this is about to go to work. I have faith in THAT.

Categorize that however you will. Have a lovely day.”

“geobeet, that is a very interesting article, gracias for posting it.”

“No offense, Buck, but You're about as unbiased a source as the pope and jerry falwell's love-child when it comes to things like this. Anywhere you see the word "God" in governmental papers, it seems you clap and cheer, "more, more!". - Phaed

No offense taken, Phaed. And I think the opposite is true. Any time you see anything in our government referring to God, you freak out and get paranoid. As for bias, what, am I biased but you're not? ha ha! I don't see you as taking an ubiased stance on this issue one bit, even if from your perspective you think you are.

I'd rather have the strictest separation of church and state so my religion is not corrupted by my government.” - Phaed

If you are suggesting re-writing the Constitution(s), fine, you have an uphill battle. There is no state-sponsored religion that outlaws other religions and thus corrupting your free right to believe as you wish happening. Do you feel threatened and persecuted by our government for whatever your beliefs are? Do you feel you are being shadowed for not believing in whatever form of Christianity you think the government endorses? (I have no clue which brand they would choose even if they did!). I really don't understand your reasoning, but hey, I guess that's what we have Supreme Courts for, eh? I have little doubt they will rule with wisdom on this issue and see that this is all silly. But then again, ya never know until they slam the hammer.”

“http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/05/breaking2453432.91875.html

Unrelated but interesting article on atheism on the decline.”

“Unrelated, but interesting fact: I'm no athiest.”

“I didn't mean to suggest you were. I remember you once stating you believed in a g(G)od(s). That's why I said it was unrelated. :Þ”

“I don't want to join the cult... Does this mean I have to move to Canada? LOL”

“A theologian with a name like Wolffart is not to be taken seriously.”

“too many 'F's?


I thought it had something to do with Art.”