The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://dispatchpolitics.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2013/07/07-17-13-freedom-from-religion.html

They say you can't put a Star of David on a holocaust memorial. Nice.

My question:

Did they take the time to actually read Salazar v. Buono?

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

...and...

"A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished, need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs."

...and...

"A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. [...] It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people.

"Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields making the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

If a Latin Cross isn't an endorsement of religion, then a Star of David, which is used as the symbolism for a secular nation, and whose history is entangled w/ both religious and secular meaning, (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3709939,00.html) just cannot be an endorsement of religion. Duh. But hey... it's a good way to waste tax-payer resources on a completely non-offensive and rather minor use of a symbol...

The two cases are easily distinguishable. 

A symbol that has existed for 70 years and one that has yet to be built. 

The case law is quite conflicted... see McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union.

So the timing of an object's construction affects it's constitutionality? Uh...
I note that an objects history, without more, is rejected by Justice Breyer as a good basis for a a monument's constitutionality in Van orden v. Perry, which was released on the same day as McCreary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry

Likewise, in Perry, that monument was adorned w/ not one but two Stars of David.

mean people suck.

This country was founded under Judeo Christian beliefs and morals.  If the founding fathers didn't want any link whatsoever with religion then they would not have used "God" on money and throughout documents.  IMO "separation of church and state" meant the framers didn't want government interfering with peoples right to practice religion.  However, it's been twisted by the ACLU, Supreme Court, and atheists to stop people from having the freedom to practicing their religion.  I'd agree that government shouldn't pay for religious celebrations, monuments, etc., but if private citizens want to fund, and a majority of the people agree, then a city should be able to hang a Merry Christmas sign, or Happy Kwanza sign, or have a non-denominational prayer at a high school graduation.

"In God We Trust" was added to the money in 1954.

Eisenhower was not a founding father.

This is blatantly false.  The "In God We Trust Thing" on money started way past the founding fathers.

Why are we writing anything about God on our money anyway?  It's just not the place for it.  I don't want it to say "There is no God" on the dollar bill, but I do feel like it's a Constitutional violation and a state sponsored establishment of religion.

I'm not out making a stink about it, but I'm glad that stuff like the FFRF is out there.  Sure, they go overboard on some things, but someone has to.

And as for "if most people agree"...it doesn't matter if everyone agrees, it's in the Constitution.  If everyone agrees and votes that it should say things about God on our money or that we should pray in school or whatever, it still should be dis-allowed.

One more thing, and I'm asking this completely earnestly, because I just can't understand the other side on this:

How is it fair that your religious belief is accurately portrayed on money and mine is not?

It makes me feel like a 2nd class citizen in my own country.  I do not trust in God.  Trusting in God is a religious statement.  Why is this on money at all?  Would you be OK if my religious beliefs were on money and it said "We don't trust in God?"  I wouldn't want that.  I want it to be inclusive of everyone.

I imagine that lots of people think this is over-reacting, but it really upsets me.  "In God We Trust" wasn't even added to the dollar until the late 50s in a push against Communism.  I cannot believe it has held up this long, as it seems to be a blatant establishment of religion.

In Dave, I Trust...

This is false, it was not. However this country was founded with slavery being endorsed and regulated, just like how god endorses and promotes slavery in the bible.

I can see your confusion.

Back to the issue of contention people:

So, what does this action by the FFRF make them? Assholes? Or exceptionally culturally insensitive assholes?

And stoning your own children, lets not forget that .. yay biblical morality ! hooray !

oh . .they're assholes .. for sure

Neither.

It makes them people dedicated to the principle that religious symbols should not be on public land. 

Religious symbols don't always promote religion, I'd say in this case it serves a valid historical purpose.

As much as i agree with the FFRF on a variety of things, they aren't always right, and you can take positions on the extreme that don't reflect reality or what a rational person would consider right.

A principle which is not, currently, part of our first amendment jurisprudence.

The answer to this is that SCOTUS has said that the Constitution allows for what they call "ceremonial deism." 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism

The court says these statements are merely ritual and not religious. At first, I thought that this was sleight of hand. I was later convinced that the court is right. The english language is perforated through w/ references to deity at some level or another.

For example: goodbye comes from God be w/ ye or you. Likewise, even atheists say stuff like, "Oh thank God," or "Goddamn" or "Oh God" or "[God] bless you" (after a sneeze). So, to some extent, phrases like "In God we Trust" are meaningless outside of ritual.

That's generally why it's legal.

^^^ By Odin's Beard, that actually makes some sense...

http://howthehog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fry-can-t-tell-meme-generator-not-sure-if-sarcasm-or-serious-e14739.jpg

Great is the mystery of sarcasm...

1 Sunstroke 3:16

Thanks for you response.  That does help, but doesn't clear it up for me.  I am not unreasonable.  I'm not saying that we should refuse to use Thursday (Thor's day) in govt. docs, for example.  But I think that in God We Trust is pretty clearly a religious statement, especially considering when and why it was added and changed from the actual motto.  "In God We Trust" doesn't now carry some meaning through tradition, other than what it actually says, the literal meaning that we trust in God.

It could be argued that the Federal Reserve is, in effect, the entity charged with control over the currency. The Federal Reserve is a private company. Hence, they can put what they want on their worthless paper.


I really don't care too much about "in god we trust" on our currency. Leave it on or take it off, doesn't affect me either way, I have better shit to worry about. However, I'm glad we agree about the constitution being followed regardless of what the masses think. If you're arguing for the 1st amendment, make sure you're being congruent and be sure to argue just as strongly for the 2nd amendment. Might as well go buy lots of guns and ammo while you're at it, hell yeah!

I don't know. Courts do as they please.

I think it's obvious that the unborn are due their human rights. But the court disagrees.

It's whatever they say - and sometimes what they say is fairly arbitrary.

something that isn't alive doesn't have rights
a rock doesn't have rights
hair on the floor of barber shop doesn't have rights
an unsustainable fetus doesn't have rights .. we can talk about rights right when a collection of cells can survive outside the womb

It would not be a very good argument. The Federal reserve has both public and private components so saying it is a private company is not accurate. Also, the Dept. of Treasury actually makes the money and they are entirely within the federal government.

If you want to split hairs. Actually, you are correct in that it has public and private components. Let me revise my statement and say that the federal reserve is not part of the US government. Federal Reserve Employees are not  US federal employees and are not covered by govt health insurance or pension programs. Federal Reserve Banks are not listed as government organizations by the phone companies. Federal Reserve decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government and it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress.

You are also correct in that the Treasury physically makes the bills. However, almost all of these bills are issued by the Federal Reserve, not the government. You will also notice that they are called FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

Fau - it's just a comparison statement. Chill.

Even so, each of your points is factually incorrect:


Corporations have rights. They are legal fictions, and definitely not alive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Majority_opinion


A rock likewise doesn't have DNA, nor does it grow in and of itself into something.


Neither does it have a totally separate and unique DNA from its bearer.


Why? Why does a fetus which is not viable not have rights? Please explain to me why viability confers human nature on what was previously cells? What you're doing is not arguing, but just stating something, as if it were common-sense. Ridiculous.

Moreover, viability is a moving line. In 1973, when Roe was decided, viability was 24 weeks. Now, the most pre-mature baby ever born was born 21 weeks and 6 days after conception... meaning that babies aborted btw 21 and 24 weeks were being killed - all because of a defition that measures medical technology's capacity at a given time - not the humanity of the fetus...

Not to completely derail this thread, but while a few fetuses have survived being born prior to 24 weeks of gestation, the numbers over time do not lie. At 24 weeks the survival rate is just over 50%. That comes from a study done in the last few years in England...a country with modern medical technology.
Beyond that, it is the mother's choice. They have to face the consequences of their decision both here, and in the afterlife, if you believe that they have committed a mortal sin and will be punished.
As for the FFRF, I understand their point. The reason behind most of these public displays of symbols is religious beliefs. It is not ceremonial deism like the SCOTUS says about our currency. Therefore they should be restricted to private land.

Because viability confers rights. A human has human rights. a potential proto-human does not. It's the same reason an egg isn't a chicken until it hatches.

As our technology advances, we've pushed back that hatching point. or viability point if you will. So it is fair to and i agree with the ban on 3rd trimester abortions (within reason). If a baby can survive outside of the womb, then i would argue that that is the line that should be drawn as far as abortions go. Until that point, since it has no innate right to exist, and just the potential to become a person, the decision is 100% the mother's who's body it's a part of.


yep .. ridiculous.


most is not all, i think it's completely valid to have a star of david present in a public holocaust memorial, it's an integral historical part, you can no more separate the jewish religion from the holocaust than you can separate african ancestry from a historical monument about american slavery

I appreciate your intelligent contribution, though I disagree w/ it. I don't understand why viability confers humanity on a creature who is otherwise exactly the same, genotypically, at 23 or 24 weeks. I get that you think it does, but, there's just no proof that this does anything to erase or confer humanity on a creature.

You can imagine, perhaps, an elderly woman who could not survive w/o round the clock care - someone to feed her, protect her, provide her w/ oxygen (her lungs are old and weak), etc, etc. Someone who is totally - in a very real sense, reliant upon someone else. Someone who would die of starvation or some other awful thing w/in a very few days just through simple neglect.

Is this person, in my hypothetical, not human? If she is human, then why is a non-viable fetus not human?

To my mind, what the viability argument comes down to is that your humanity could, potentially, be based on how strong you are to survive in your environment. That comes off to me as insane and somewhat eugenic.


If you read Salazar, etc, they say that structures like crosses, have meanings beyond the simple religious meaning - therefore they are allowed to stand. I think a Star of David would pass muster here. It is, after all, a political symbol.


Even so - does anyone realize how much of an asshole you have to be to file a legal action to get a six-point star removed from a Holocaust Memorial? A HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL?! That is the insanity of these people.

But you're arguing in a circle. Viability confers humanity you say. I say why? You're answer: a human has rights and a proto-human doesn't. Wha?

You have to explain *WHY* viability causes humanity to be conferred upon an organism. I'll await your reply.


Fau - I know you're smarter than this. I wasn't making an argument there, or using a statement of faith as an argument. I was making a comparison point to Dave's question as to why the supreme court ruled that way. They're arbitrary to everyone, conservative or liberal; religious or not. I used a point on which I feel they're being arbitrary. That's all. I know you understand that, right? If you don't, please go back and read. You'll see what I'm saying bears out.

a person has rights, a non person entity does not have the same rights (if it has any at all)

a non-viable fetus is a non-person entity.  therefore it does not have the same rights as a person

just as a tangent. a person doesn't have the right of survival. a person has the ability to survive, but no inherit right to survival. generally nobody has the right to end a person's survival, with a few exceptions. of course (self defense, war, death penalty) a non-viable fetus doesn't have the ability to survive

Do you see how you're still doing it? Arguing in a circle I mean?

Why does viability confer personhood or humanity? You haven't really answered that yet. You're just repeating yourself, without explaining yourself.

Imagine this. Imagine if I said:

"Atheists are all evil." And you said, "Why are they evil?" And I replied with "Because they're atheists." And you then said, "But why does that make them evil?" And I said, "Atheists are evil because they're atheists."

Do you see what my issue is now? I'd have to explain why atheism confers evilness on someone to answer your question.

Yes - I agree, only humans have human rights. But - why aren't nonviable fetuses humans?

what makes a person a person ? we're getting hung up on the definition here.

a non-viable fetus is unable to survive outside of a mother by definition
if it could survive outside the mother, then it would be a viable fetus also by definition

can we agree on those ?

you're keep asking why this is... my answer to you is I don't care about why .. go ask a philosopher .. I don't care one iota about the why of it .. life is what life is ..if a mass of cells can survive on it's own it is a singular being  .. if it can't it's an extension of the mother and a non-being until such time as it can and becomes a person.

With this foundation, you can see how my position on fetal rights and abortion logically progresses.

your example also is nonsensical. evil is a value judgment applied to something an opinion. viability is not a judgement, it's a state of fact either viable or non-viable and is not an opinion.

I'm not sure why moving the line based on medical technology is a problem.  When was the last time you ever heard of someone dying of "natural causes"?

As I see it, from a naturalistic standpoint, the fetus would have no right to the mother's body at all, ever.  As our medical technology advances and the point at which the fetus can survive outside of the mother gets earlier, more options become available.  But I don't believe that a woman should ever be forced to carry a fetus against her will, and so whether or not a fetus is a separate life is defined entirely on whether it depends exclusively on the mother for survival.