They don’t call it the Buckle of the Bible Belt for nothing
26 Responses to “They don’t call it the Buckle of the Bible Belt for nothing”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 7th, 2003 at 9:56 am
Thankfully Wanda Moody is against this, and she goes to my church. She’s a smart lady.
November 7th, 2003 at 10:13 am
First of I don’t agree with what the counties are doing but how does the First Amendment take another hit?
Note it says CONGRESS shall make no law. It doesn’t say anything about any other governmental institution and what about the rights of those who want the free exercise thereof ? Do their rights to speech mean less because they have religious beliefs?
Yes it is a much different time now then it was when the Bill of Rights was written. Most people today don’t understand that there was never an intention to ban any religious connection to politics. The First Amendment was meant to protect both sides of religious liberty. No law could be made to impose religion or to prevent it. How do you reconcile the second part of the establishment clause with your views on intent?
I don’t expect you will agree with me on this point but there it is. I do think with the political climate the way it is today these counties are just asking for trouble and that this is probably a very dumb thing to do. The bad consequences of this action will probably outweigh any good that they hope would come from it.
Say Uncle I know we don’t see eye to eye on this but I thought you may find some interest in this essay comparing the way the First and Second Amendment are interpreted today. Bearing Arms vs Bare Arms
November 7th, 2003 at 10:27 am
Amendment 14:
And don’t try the The State argument because it has been held that the fourteenth applies to all branches of government. Otherwise, roy moore would still be displaying his monument.
November 7th, 2003 at 10:54 am
I don’t like the idea of government condoning a particular religion. If you don’t see a problem with it, substitute “Allah” for “God.”
November 7th, 2003 at 11:19 am
Buck:
Note it says CONGRESS shall make no law. It doesn’t say anything about any other governmental institution and what about the rights of those who want the free exercise thereof?
Good Lord, not that argument again! Never mind that decades of Supreme Court precedents disagree with you. Let’s ask whether original intent is in any way relevant. If it is, then it’s clear that the founders clearly intended for government to be neutral on matters of religion, i.e. total separation. If it isn’t relevant, then firearm ownership is only protected within the context of a state-run militia. Take your pick.
But never mind even that. It amazes me how the “States’ Rights” folks consistently ignore the State Constitution. Witness Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Section 3, which states:
So you see, these resolutions are unconstitutional in the State of Tennessee, so appealing to the federal Constitution is irrelevant.
As a side note, in virtually every State Constitution I’ve checked, there are more restrictive church/state separation clauses than the ones in the federal First Amendment.
Uncle:
Otherwise, roy moore would still be displaying his monument.
Wrong again. We’ve been through that before. Alabama’s State Consitution has tougher restrictions that made his monument unconstitutional in Alabama, which he conveniently ignored.
November 7th, 2003 at 11:28 am
Our argument was based on the federal level. I’m aware of state law but that wasn’t what we were discussing.
November 7th, 2003 at 11:29 am
I am not sure how that applies to what I said. Can you explain? Some may consider living in a country that cherishes religious liberty a privilege. Others may not. Both sides are protected under the Bill of Rights.
I think you are missing my point. I don’t like the idea either but if they want to endorse God, Allah or Satan himself I have a choice to make. I can work hard to vote them out and get a government that better reflects my own views or I can just live with it.
There is no right anywhere in the Constitution that protects me from being offended. It is sorta like the prayers that take place before many governmental meetings. In today’s world they may not be appropriate but the Supreme Court has continuously ruled in favor of allowing them to take place for historical reasons if nothing else.
Besides I don’t care what religion any government condones or condemns for that matter. It doesn’t affect my own belief system and as long as coercion is not practiced it is line with what the founders believed.
It is not about States rights with me. It is ALL ABOUT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
November 7th, 2003 at 12:11 pm
Buck:
There is no right anywhere in the Constitution that protects me from being offended.
No, but as I’ve pointed out, both the Federal and State Constitutions prohibit government favoritism with respect to religion. The violation may not be so clear at the Federal level, but it’s crystal clear at the state level.
It is not about States rights with me. It is ALL ABOUT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
And history has shown, time and again, that religious liberty is best protected when the government remains totally neutral on matters of religion. The vast majority of lawsuits that are brought opposing these proclamations, and other governmental religious preferential treatment, are brought by people who are themselves very religious, but whose religions are undermined by such proclamations.
As a champion of religious liberty, you should be more upset than anyone at these county commissions using religion as a posturing tool for cheap political gain.
November 7th, 2003 at 12:18 pm
One more thing (I have mentioned this before but it has been a while). I have been in a two year battle with my city hall to stop endorsing a not so blatantly religious program from its website as well as other promotional material it provides to the citizens.
I believe it is wrong because there is coercion. There is no way for city employees to opt out. That is wrong and contrary to personal liberty let a lone religious liberty.
Therein lies the problem. Most people don’t care about its religious origins and to be honest with you I don’t either. I have a problem with the coercion and the material being so centered on obeying authority without question. I would fight this program whether it was religiously based or not because it is a direct attack on everyone’s liberty.
November 7th, 2003 at 12:21 pm
Amen. I think you all have the wrong idea about where I am coming from. I am not going to change your perception about that but please understand I am a liberty purest and stay consistent regardless of whether this discussion was about religion or prostitution (another thing the government should not condemn or condone).
November 7th, 2003 at 12:29 pm
Buck:
I wasn’t trying to imply that your position was anti-religious liberty in any way. All I was really saying was that your appeal to the particular wording of the federal First Amendment, whatever may have motivated it, was demonstrably BS. 😉
I think about the only disagreement we have on religious liberty is that I don’t think it’s ever okay for a US government at any level to show religious preference, even if the vast majority of the constituency agrees with the sentiment. The founders went to great pains to create a completely secular republic, and I hate seeing that undermined.
November 7th, 2003 at 1:03 pm
I never thought you thought I was anti-religious liberty. I am not even sure what I said that would make you reply that way. As far as being BS all I was saying is there is a second sentence included with the often-stated separation clause that many people ignore.
You don’t buy it? Fine that’s the beauty of the First Amendment I can say what I want about it, as you can, and there is nothing the government can do to us.
You may be partially right on the disagreement thing but the people in any community have the ultimate responsibility to decide what is right for them.
There are a couple of cities near where I live. One has very strict decency laws and doesn’t permit strip clubs, explicit magazines in plain view etc. The city next to it doesn’t have such laws and businesses that deal in the industry do quite well.
People in each city have put people in office who best represent their interests. It’s a great example of representative government and it works. Are there people in each city who are unhappy about this arrangement? Of course there are but that is something they have to live with in a free society. Of course they could always move somewhere else.
Anyway I don’t think we are going to make any progress here so I’m outa here. Thanks for taking my point somewhat seriously. BS makes great fertilizer.
November 7th, 2003 at 1:10 pm
Oops I had one more quote to deal with. This one:
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government. Sure they are quotes that can be used out of context but I have done an extensive amount of reading about the context of the times these men lived in. There is no point to that link other then to offer it as an interesting read.
November 7th, 2003 at 1:32 pm
Another angle: what governmental purpose does this accomplish, other than simply promoting religion?
November 7th, 2003 at 2:39 pm
“I think you are missing my point. I don’t like the idea either but if they want to endorse God, Allah or Satan himself I have a choice to make. I can work hard to vote them out and get a government that better reflects my own views or I can just live with it.”
And if you’re in the minority, you’ll be tyrannized by the majority. It’s the classic “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.” Which is exactly what democracy is unless there’s a guarantee of rights.The whole point of a bill of rights is to guarantee everyone’s rights, whether they’re in the majority or the minority, popular or unpopular.
November 7th, 2003 at 3:16 pm
I know I said I was outa here but I can’t let this go. America is not a democracy nor was it ever meant to be one. We are a Representative Republic.
The point of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate the inalienable rights endowed to us by our creator (what ever you consider the creator to be). There is nothing there that protects the minority from the majority or vise versa. The protections are meant for ALL citizens and the restrictions were meant for the government
In the city I live in I am in the minority of opinion on many issues. I do not believe the council has the right to impose minimal standards on the poor and elderly but they do and it is legal.
Tell me which Amendment protects this monitory of poor / elderly citizens from the majority of standards bigots in the city. There is none. The only thing that gets in the way of this tyranny is myself and a few other concerned citizens. The wolves are in government.
November 7th, 2003 at 4:33 pm
Buck:
The part that’s ignored is that you (general case, not you specifically) pushing your method of exercise into the public square often can and does infringe on my right and ability to freely exercise my method.
This illuminates a larger point: rights, even constitutionally guaranteed ones, are not necessarily absolute. As has been famously said, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Similarly, your right to exercise your religion ends at my right to exercise mine. So proclamations such as this (and Commandments displays, and what have you) actually violate both clauses of the First Amendment.
I’ll have to check out the Jefferson link. At first glance, I didn’t see a lot about church and state there.
Brian A:
Valid point. Never mind even the church/state issue. What does it accomplish at all? In all likelihood, it qualifies as government waste, that doesn’t serve the public trust in any way, and as such, should be scrapped.
Buck:
Well, technically, neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution as a whole ever make any mention a “Creator.” I highly doubt that was an oversight; more likely, it was quite deliberate, based on the writings of the founders.
They do mention “the Year of Our Lord” once, but that was the standard way of denoting dates back then, and still is today, albeit abbreviated, so there’s not much religious significance there.
The question is not just one of whether the right of the minority is explicitly protected, but also one of whether the ability of the majority to establish such standards is explicitly prohibited. In the case of religious expression, the majority (at least in government and on public property) is explicitly prohibited from showing any favor whatsoever.
Now you may disagree whether or not that’s an accurate interpretation of the state and federal clauses, and that’s fine, but that’s the established precedent. (Personally, I would say that it is an accurate interpretation.)
November 7th, 2003 at 5:02 pm
I wonder how the churches would feel if I decided to ask for my county rep to pass a “Thank Satan” day?
November 7th, 2003 at 5:42 pm
Tgirsch, you quoted from the TN State constitution (Article I, Section 3), where it specifically mentions Almighty God and “modes of worship.” And yet that same constitution also prohibits atheists from ever holding office in Tennessee! See Article IX, Section 2. (http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/IX.html#2).
So, a large number of folks (Buddhists, Confucians, Shinto, pagans, atheists, etc.) are barred by law from serving their state, based on their religion?
Talk to me about freedom….
November 7th, 2003 at 7:32 pm
Ok instead of responding to everyone individually I am going to post this as a general follow up to some of the points brought up.
Oops I took the Creator line from the Declaration of Independence. Sorry about that. For some reason I was thinking it was in a preamble to the Constitution.
I didn’t post that link to make any connection to Church and State. I just posted it because I found the writings of Thomas Jefferson interesting and insightful. I thought I made that clear but as I reread it I can see how it wasn’t
I have just ran for office (for the election on the 4th) and been in involved with local politics for over two years and nobody outside of my narrow group of friends and family know that I worship at all. In fact, many think that I am a Godless heathen because I have fought so hard to stop the quasi-religious program I mentioned above. I know that my stance hurt me with many people who would call themselves Christians in my city but my principles come before politics. During my fight against that program and my time I spent campaigning I never thought my religious beliefs were particularly relevant to the office so I never brought them up.
I am not sure at all what the point of this post is other then to try and make it clear that I am not some bible thumper trying to impose my religion on others. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
All issues concerning liberty are very important to me and I think it is important to be vigilant in defense of all of them.
November 7th, 2003 at 9:10 pm
“I know I said I was outa here but I can’t let this go. America is not a democracy nor was it ever meant to be one. We are a Representative Republic.”
Before I get all pedantic, I should say that it doesn’t matter. Minority of the population or minority of the elected representatives, the point still stands. Whether it’s a popular majority voting to abridge Buck Hicks’s rights, or a majority of elected representatives, the point’s the same.
Now to be pedantic. In any modern dictionary, the distinction between democracy and republic is thing to the vanishign point. A system of elected representatives is one modern definition of democracy. Hey, don’t take my word for it. Look it up:
Dictionary.com
Merriam-Webster
November 7th, 2003 at 9:14 pm
Buck:
“The point of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate the inalienable rights endowed to us by our creator (what ever you consider the creator to be). There is nothing there that protects the minority from the majority or vise versa. The protections are meant for ALL citizens and the restrictions were meant for the government”
Agreed. That’s why I said “Which is exactly what democracy is unless there’s a guarantee of rights. The whole point of a bill of rights is to guarantee everyone’s rights, whether they’re in the majority or the minority, popular or unpopular.”
November 8th, 2003 at 2:26 am
mike:
By golly, you’re right. and if you look at Article IX, Section 1, priest/ministers/rabbis/imams/etc. are also prohibited from serving. Can’t serve if you’re not devout enough, and can’t serve if you’re too devout. How odd!
Also odd (and confusing) is how Article IX, Section 2 directly contradicts Article I, Section 4:
So which is it? You’re required to demonstrate that you have a religion, or you can’t be required to pass a religious test? Which takes precedent?
And the far juicier and more interesting question, particularly aimed for the States’ Rights folks, is assuming the absence of TN Article I, Section 4, which should take precedence: TN Article IX, Section 2; or federal Article VI, Clause 3 (“…but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”)?
Buck:
I really don’t think we have any quarrel here, except perhaps on minor points of detail. I think we all agree that such proclamations are BS, even if we may not agree whether or not they’re exactly constitutional.
November 7th, 2003 at 10:26 am
Who’s on First? What’s on Second
November 7th, 2003 at 12:23 pm
God in Government
Via Say Uncle, Knox County and Blount County are considering resolutions to proclaim “God as the Foundation of Our National…
November 9th, 2003 at 10:59 pm
Clergy, Atheists, and Duelists Need Not Apply in Tennessee
Friday SayUncle had a post about some area counties adopting resolutions proclaiming that our country was founded in a belief in God. In the comments section, Mike Hollihan of HalfBakered posted this excerpt from Tennessee’s Constitution: § 1. Clergy; …