Christ Centered Gamer

ArcticFox wrote:That's a bit vague. I'd be interested in knowing the details.

Either way, what I'm talking about is the result if they put up a billboard like that in this country. I think public (and Government) reaction would be rather different. The State Department doesn't like it when Americans openly criticize Islam.

They did put it up in this country. It was in an arab neighborhood in the United States.

selderane wrote:And the Bill of Rights were a restraint placed against the federal government, and the federal government only. The states were afforded much broader powers.

While you may feel that no state should do X, Y, or Z, there is nothing within the Bill of Rights that says they do not have that power. You're reading authority into that document it was never authored to have.

I agree with you that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states but it currently does thanks to the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So you agree with me. You agree that if a group of people want to go off and found their own city, with whatever holy book they hold dear (On the Origin of Species, Atlas Shrugged, the Bible...) as the town charter, they ought to have that right.

Whether they "ought to" have that right is an interesting question, as long as we all understand that under the current constitution they in fact don't have that right. If a city was founded with a religious document as its town charter then that would certainly be a violation of the first amendment as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. The authority of local governments flows from the power of the states. Any constitutional provision that limits the states also limits cities. Because established religions violate the 14th Amendment (it is legally considered a "due process" right--i.e., if you can be prosecuted for violating a holy book, then that isn't due process because the right against established religions is a fundamental right enshrined in the bill of rights). And no matter how narrow one reads the establishment clause, founding a government on a particular holy book would violate it under any interpretation that I know of. So regardless of what you think ought to be the case, the legal reality is that founding a city with a holy book for a charter would be illegal.

And I don't think it "ought to" be legal either. The only difference between a federal government imposing a religion on its people and a city imposing a religion on its people is the size of a government. A small tyranny is still a tyranny. No one in America should be subject to a government-coerced religion, and because all government action is coercive (it's all funded by taxes that are not voluntary) that pretty much means that any time a government acts to boost a favored religion it is exercising a tyrannical form of power.

And I find it puzzling that you place such value on a document that was written as a buffer against the very thing you advocate in your first sentence: The Constitution being interpreted broadly.

Simply put: Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution wouldn't bind federal power enough, and sought to enumerate explicitly areas it could not go. Federalists, on the other hand, felt such an enumeration was unnecessary because what the Constitution didn't explicitly give the federal government was reserved for the states. Furthermore, they feared that such an enumeration might be read to mean whatever wasn't covered could be encroached upon by federal power.

The Bill of Rights is the product of a compromise between these two factions. An explicit limit on the powers of the federal government beyond those already implicitly contained within the Constitution.

Read the Constitution as widely as you wish, but understand that the Bill of Rights exists specifically to defend against that very act.

There is no inconsistency here. The Bill of Rights was enacted to constrain the government and broaden the rights of individuals. ArchAngel is saying that the Bill of Rights should be read broadly, that is, they should be read as giving individuals broad rights and as corollary constrain the government more. It would be a narrow reading of the individual rights that would be inconsistent with the goal of those rights.

If ArchAngel was arguing that we should broadly read the commerce clause or something that gives the government power, then you're point would be more appropriate. But the Bill of Rights are limits on government power; therefore, the more broadly they are read the more limited government power becomes.

Truthseeker wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:That's a bit vague. I'd be interested in knowing the details.

Either way, what I'm talking about is the result if they put up a billboard like that in this country. I think public (and Government) reaction would be rather different. The State Department doesn't like it when Americans openly criticize Islam.

They did put it up in this country. It was in an arab neighborhood in the United States.

selderane wrote:And the Bill of Rights were a restraint placed against the federal government, and the federal government only. The states were afforded much broader powers.

While you may feel that no state should do X, Y, or Z, there is nothing within the Bill of Rights that says they do not have that power. You're reading authority into that document it was never authored to have.

I agree with you that the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states but it currently does thanks to the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Except that the 14th Amendment was never intended to place the constraints of the Bill or Rights upon the states. Its plan text makes this obvious. Was this definition later read into it? Yes. But it was never understood to be there when authored. The 14th Amendment was put in place to correct an imbalance, i.e. slaves not receiving the rights due to any other citizen of the United States. That is it.

Truthseeker wrote:

selderane wrote: So you agree with me. You agree that if a group of people want to go off and found their own city, with whatever holy book they hold dear (On the Origin of Species, Atlas Shrugged, the Bible...) as the town charter, they ought to have that right.

Whether they "ought to" have that right is an interesting question, as long as we all understand that under the current constitution they in fact don't have that right. If a city was founded with a religious document as its town charter then that would certainly be a violation of the first amendment as applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment. The authority of local governments flows from the power of the states. Any constitutional provision that limits the states also limits cities. Because established religions violate the 14th Amendment (it is legally considered a "due process" right--i.e., if you can be prosecuted for violating a holy book, then that isn't due process because the right against established religions is a fundamental right enshrined in the bill of rights). And no matter how narrow one reads the establishment clause, founding a government on a particular holy book would violate it under any interpretation that I know of. So regardless of what you think ought to be the case, the legal reality is that founding a city with a holy book for a charter would be illegal.

And I don't think it "ought to" be legal either. The only difference between a federal government imposing a religion on its people and a city imposing a religion on its people is the size of a government. A small tyranny is still a tyranny. No one in America should be subject to a government-coerced religion, and because all government action is coercive (it's all funded by taxes that are not voluntary) that pretty much means that any time a government acts to boost a favored religion it is exercising a tyrannical form of power.

The current Constitution says in fact no such thing. Again, meanings have been read into it that were never understood to be there when the sections in question were authored.

It is fact that several states had official religions when they ratified the Constitution. They no longer exist now, having faded over time, but they didn't simply vanish when the Bill of Rights was ratified. There was no reason for them to because it was understood that the 1st Amendment didn't apply to them. Just as it was understood at the time that the 14th Amendment didn't bind the states in the same was the federal government was.

And I find your definition of "imposing a religion" extremely curious when my example was very explicit that nothing would be imposed upon anyone who didn't desire the imposition; i.e. a group of like-minded individuals establishing their own community and subjecting themselves to the same religious laws. That right there is the American story! From early Pilgrim settlers leaving British oppression to establish their own (shock) religious communities, to groups of people getting away from these communities to form again (shock) their own religious communities.

But you would have me believe this was all wrong? You want to talk about freedom, but you deny the rights of free people to establish communities of their own conscience? Rights the earliest settlers of this continent enjoyed?

Yeah... something tells me we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.

Truthseeker wrote:

selderane wrote:

And I find it puzzling that you place such value on a document that was written as a buffer against the very thing you advocate in your first sentence: The Constitution being interpreted broadly.

Simply put: Anti-Federalists feared that the Constitution wouldn't bind federal power enough, and sought to enumerate explicitly areas it could not go. Federalists, on the other hand, felt such an enumeration was unnecessary because what the Constitution didn't explicitly give the federal government was reserved for the states. Furthermore, they feared that such an enumeration might be read to mean whatever wasn't covered could be encroached upon by federal power.

The Bill of Rights is the product of a compromise between these two factions. An explicit limit on the powers of the federal government beyond those already implicitly contained within the Constitution.

Read the Constitution as widely as you wish, but understand that the Bill of Rights exists specifically to defend against that very act.

There is no inconsistency here. The Bill of Rights was enacted to constrain the government and broaden the rights of individuals. ArchAngel is saying that the Bill of Rights should be read broadly, that is, they should be read as giving individuals broad rights and as corollary constrain the government more. It would be a narrow reading of the individual rights that would be inconsistent with the goal of those rights.

If ArchAngel was arguing that we should broadly read the commerce clause or something that gives the government power, then you're point would be more appropriate. But the Bill of Rights are limits on government power; therefore, the more broadly they are read the more limited government power becomes.

Nope. Sorry. You're mistaken again. The Bill of Rights never broadened the rights of the individual because those rights exist outside the purview of government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the source of rights for all men: God. The government cannot give men what God Himself doesn't give them.

Men surrender certain rights to government for the protection of liberty of the whole. That does not make government the author of those rights. The Bill of Rights simply made more explicit lines government was forbidden to cross to sooth the concerns of those who felt the Constitution wasn't clear enough on its own.

ArchAngel wrote:I'm not a fan of the billboard; if you're going to go after one's religion, do it with thought out criticisms and not just blatant insult or mindless assertion.

Agreed here. This billboard will only make the militants happy and the religious right angry -- just increase the polarization. If the atheist organizations want any sort of dialogue with the religious right, they should reevaluate their methods. Of course, I think it wasmentioned on this thread that the billboard may have been intended to target a more agnostic-atheist type that still has ties to religion. Even then, how effective is this?

selderane wrote:If a bunch of people want to go found their own city and make whatever holy book they follow their town charter, there's nothing that should stop them.

I know TS already laid out the 14th, but I thought I'd just throw out an example of why this is a bad idea. One word -- Islam. Do you want to be subjected to Shariah law while doing business at such a city? Or, suppose they can keep to themselves. If you were able to prevent the institution of SHariah law in ANY city in the world, aren't you morally obligated to take such preventive action against it?

selderane wrote:Except that the 14th Amendment was never intended to place the constraints of the Bill or Rights upon the states. Its plan text makes this obvious. Was this definition later read into it? Yes. But it was never understood to be there when authored. The 14th Amendment was put in place to correct an imbalance, i.e. slaves not receiving the rights due to any other citizen of the United States. That is it.

You may have some argument as to why you think the 14th Amendment was intended to do no more than equalize the legal standing of slaves with other citizens. I am interested in hearing that argument if you have it. However, you cannot support that reading by claiming that the "plain text makes this obvious." The plain text protects due process, privileges, immunities, and equal protection for everyone who is a "person." Nothing in the actual text implies that ex-slaves were the only people meant to benefit from the amendment. Obviously, former slaves were who the framers had in mind when drafting the amendment. Do not confuse making a law intended to address a particular problem with making a law intended to only apply a particular problem. The authors could have drafted the law so that all it said was slaves had to be treated the same as everyone else, but they opted instead to frame a broader principle.

Your interpretation cannot be supported by a plain text reading. You seem to be narrowing the actual text based on your understanding of history. However, the term "privileges and immunities" was adopted in response to the that phrase's use in the Dred Scott decision, which used "privileges and immunities" to refer to individual rights included the right to bear arms, to assemble, and to speak freely. So by adopting an amendment that says states cannot abridge privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the author really did intend to say that states had to recognize individual rights.

You might also have in mind the Slaughterhouse opinion, in which the Supreme Court very narrowly interpreted the Privileges and Immunities clause to apply only to former slaves. This case has very little credibility in current legal practice and legal scholars are in consensus that it was wrongly decided and more a result of the Court being in denial about the sea change that was the 14th Amendment than a reflection of what the Amendment was actually intended to accomplish. Rather than overturning Slaughterhouse, however, the Court has gone the route of using the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause as the means for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The privileges and immunities clause makes more sense, but judges are reluctant to overturn a case if they have an alternate basis to achieve the same result.

And I find your definition of "imposing a religion" extremely curious when my example was very explicit that nothing would be imposed upon anyone who didn't desire the imposition; i.e. a group of like-minded individuals establishing their own community and subjecting themselves to the same religious laws. That right there is the American story! From early Pilgrim settlers leaving British oppression to establish their own (shock) religious communities, to groups of people getting away from these communities to form again (shock) their own religious communities.

But you would have me believe this was all wrong? You want to talk about freedom, but you deny the rights of free people to establish communities of their own conscience? Rights the earliest settlers of this continent enjoyed?

Yeah... something tells me we're not going to see eye to eye on this one.

Yes, if the community exerts religious compulsion on people found within its jurisdiction then it is imposing religion. You are using "the right of free people to establish communities of their own conscience" as a euphemism for instuting theocratic governments that compel religious activity through the force of law. Your response seems to be that if people don't like living in a theocracy, then they are free to leave. In other words, a person in that situation has two choices: submit to theocracy or be exiled. I have many problems with that argument, but when I search my feelings I think what really bothers me is that I know membership of a community isn't as voluntary as people make it out to be. What about people born into these communities after they are established? Do they have to move away from their lives in order to find the religious freedom they should be entitled to as a given? And when they do, are they venturing into a patchwork nation where a person's fundamental liberties can be freely disregarded depending on what clod of dirt they happen to step on?

I wish it weren't so controversial, in this day and age, that freedom from religious law is a fundamental human right. Theocracy is morally wicked, period. And yes, it was wrong in the colonial governments, too. You are severely romanticizing what life was like for people living in those communities. You are talking about societies where religious submission was compelled through beating, killing, and exile (and back then exile didn't mean you got to start a new town with your buddies, it meant you died brutally in the wilderness).

Nope. Sorry. You're mistaken again. The Bill of Rights never broadened the rights of the individual because those rights exist outside the purview of government. The Declaration of Independence establishes the source of rights for all men: God. The government cannot give men what God Himself doesn't give them.

Men surrender certain rights to government for the protection of liberty of the whole. That does not make government the author of those rights. The Bill of Rights simply made more explicit lines government was forbidden to cross to sooth the concerns of those who felt the Constitution wasn't clear enough on its own.

I'm mistaken on what point, exactly? What I said was that the more broadly one reads the bill of rights, the more government power is curtailed. Nothing you say argues against that point. If you think that the bill of rights is just a reservation of rights originally granted by God, then a broader reading of those rights means that we retain more of our God-given rights and we therefore concede less power to the government. If you think the bill of rights is just making explicit some of the rights already implicit in the structure of the constitution, then a broader reading resolves any possible uncertainty in favor of more rights for individuals and less power for the government. Basically, pick your favorite theory and a broad reading of the bill of rights equals more freedom for the individual, which is what the anti-Federalists wanted to make sure of.

I know I started this debate with selderane, and TS picked it up, so I just wanted to clarify on TS's posts: yes. Yes. YES. YES. YES. Not only do I agree with everything he said, but it's also been wonderful to read.
There's not much I can really say that TS didn't already say and better.

The only one being the question I was referenced in.

Truthseeker wrote:If ArchAngel was arguing that we should broadly read the commerce clause or something that gives the government power, then you're point would be more appropriate. But the Bill of Rights are limits on government power; therefore, the more broadly they are read the more limited government power becomes.

I certainly do not construe the commerce clause and other federal provisions loosely. Federal powers I interpret strictly, but the rights of the people I will always interpret broadly (as laid out by the 14th, thanks for mentioning it. I forgot where that clause was. I was looking at the 9th and 10th).

And I'll jump on the 14th amendment plain text reading bandwagon. Section 1 is pretty clear.
And just to be abundantly clear (again):

• Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's really quite beautiful, and we're lucky to live in a country where the rights of the people are so protected by the supreme law of the land. In the history of the world, who can say the same?

Truthseeker wrote:
They did put it up in this country. It was in an arab neighborhood in the United States.

My bad. I misread "community" as "country."

Would still be interested in details though.

Thing is, either way, it's trolling.

As they explained, they think that much if not most of the religious communities are filled with atheists or agnostics who really just go along with it, and the purpose of these is to encourage them to come out. That itself is a not a bad thing; a person should always be honest about their beliefs, most importantly to themselves. But it really comes off strongly as just blatant insulting someone's beliefs. From their position, they are not so worried about that, because the person who'd be offended is not the person they are trying to reach.

Now, I think they overestimate how many closeted agnostics or atheists are in these communities.

Call me skeptical, but I don't buy it. Somehow I just can't see this as a noble effort to reach out to the silent, oppressed masses within the Christian community who are just waiting to come out. That may be their spin, but no.

Honestly... does this really seem like community outreach to you? Honestly?

Let's compare their tactic to another group that claims to be reaching out to people who hide who they are because of all these dastardly Christians - homosexuals. To their credit, most of the media I've seen on that matter have been much more of a tone of support and understanding, as opposed to a snarky jab. Imagine if a gay outreach billboard said something like "Forget the myth, not everyone is meant to be a breeder!" That sets up an implicit "us vs them" attitude right there. There's "us," the good, noble, intelligent, clear-thinkers... and there's "them," people mired in myths and superstition.

That's trolling. Plain and simple.

ArchAngel wrote:I know I started this debate with selderane, and TS picked it up, so I just wanted to clarify on TS's posts: yes. Yes. YES. YES. YES.

Annnnddd here's where I check out.

There's a distasteful habit amongst some posters here to turn a discussion into some kind of playground fight - with one party or another "ooohhing" when a particular burn has been dropped, or a clever image posted just to underline how owned some person got.

It's not how I comport myself and I have zero interest in contentious discussions where it's acceptable. I have better things to do with the time it takes me to think out and compose myself on issues I care about.

So, huzzah! You win. Fist bumps for all interested parties.

ArcticFox wrote:Call me skeptical, but I don't buy it. Somehow I just can't see this as a noble effort to reach out to the silent, oppressed masses within the Christian community who are just waiting to come out. That may be their spin, but no.

Honestly... does this really seem like community outreach to you? Honestly?

Let's compare their tactic to another group that claims to be reaching out to people who hide who they are because of all these dastardly Christians - homosexuals. To their credit, most of the media I've seen on that matter have been much more of a tone of support and understanding, as opposed to a snarky jab. Imagine if a gay outreach billboard said something like "Forget the myth, not everyone is meant to be a breeder!" That sets up an implicit "us vs them" attitude right there. There's "us," the good, noble, intelligent, clear-thinkers... and there's "them," people mired in myths and superstition.

That's trolling. Plain and simple.

It does. It makes more sense to me that people would spend their money for a cause that they think is good, than to just screw other people over. A lot of atheists view christian behavior as insidious or agenda-based, but the most probably explanation is they simply are doing what they think is right. Most of human behavior can be explained by this.
Now, I've said before, I don't like it and I don't think it's effective. It does create a Us vs. Them dichotomy and is more unproductive than productive. If there was one person here defending it, I'd be saying that to him (which is probably why you're saying this to me, since I am playing devil's advocate.) Right now, I'm saying it's not a deliberate attempt to just offend and insult, but an short-sighted, ignorant gesture to reach out to closeted atheists who feel forced into a religion. Break the Us. vs. Them cycle.

selderane wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:I know I started this debate with selderane, and TS picked it up, so I just wanted to clarify on TS's posts: yes. Yes. YES. YES. YES.

Annnnddd here's where I check out.

There's a distasteful habit amongst some posters here to turn a discussion into some kind of playground fight - with one party or another "ooohhing" when a particular burn has been dropped, or a clever image posted just to underline how owned some person got.

It's not how I comport myself and I have zero interest in contentious discussions where it's acceptable. I have better things to do with the time it takes me to think out and compose myself on issues I care about.

So, huzzah! You win. Fist bumps for all interested parties.

As long as you found a way to feel superior, that's what's important.


But so you know, none of this is even about you. It's not about "burning" you. TS made great points in a field of his expertise and I was giving him my affirmation, especially since he picked up where I left off. But if you want to make it about yourself, go ahead.

ArchAngel wrote:It does. It makes more sense to me that people would spend their money for a cause that they think is good, than to just screw other people over. A lot of atheists view christian behavior as insidious or agenda-based, but the most probably explanation is they simply are doing what they think is right. Most of human behavior can be explained by this.
Now, I've said before, I don't like it and I don't think it's effective. It does create a Us vs. Them dichotomy and is more unproductive than productive. If there was one person here defending it, I'd be saying that to him (which is probably why you're saying this to me, since I am playing devil's advocate.) Right now, I'm saying it's not a deliberate attempt to just offend and insult, but an short-sighted, ignorant gesture to reach out to closeted atheists who feel forced into a religion. Break the Us. vs. Them cycle.

I just don't have the same level of faith in their motives as you. It just seems to me if their intentions really were that sincere, they'd have found a less abrasive way to express it. I assume that these people are not stupid, and that the billboard cost a considerable sum to buy the time on, so it would seem to me they'd want to put up a message that expressed their intent as accurately as possible. I bet we could come up with a way to make the statement without alienating people, so either we're a lot smarter than they are, or the billboard is having precisely the effect they intended.

They may be "smart," but they are ignorant of christian communities. The president of the association himself said he thinks most of them are atheists, and the religious leaders and swindlers and con men. Completely ignorant of what it's like to be religious. It's not necessarily easy to see from another's perspective. And let's be honest, they are not from marketing.

You're a smart guy, and even you feel more comfortable assuming that they just want to pee off people.
And let's be honest, being abrasive gets them more publicity. Their message gets heard by making waves.

I invoke Hanlon's Razor:

• Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I prefer "ignorance" over "stupidity," since I find it's often a matter of a lack of understanding and knowledge, or a willingness to do so, instead of an inability to comprehend.

Touche'

I'll agree with AF here. It was trolling. I mean, as an atheist (yeah, I guess I'm an atheist now) I can see where these guys are coming from. Atheists are a minority (although I think both militant atheists and a lot of Christians could stand to walk a mile in a disabled person's shoes if they want to see what persecution is really like, but I won't get into that). Many "closet" atheists are starting to find their voice, and they live in a country that is predominantly Christian (75 percent, folks). Add to that the major entitlement complex that pretty much all of us Americans, Christian or no, suffer from and yeah, I can see why they did it. Still, it's trolling.

I think there should be friendly dialogue between atheists and Christians, and this sort of thing just drives the wedge in further. Let's face it: Neither group is going away any time soon, we might as well learn to live with each other. </hippydippy>

EDIT:

Annnnddd here's where I check out.

There's a distasteful habit amongst some posters here to turn a discussion into some kind of playground fight - with one party or another "ooohhing" when a particular burn has been dropped, or a clever image posted just to underline how owned some person got.

It's not how I comport myself and I have zero interest in contentious discussions where it's acceptable. I have better things to do with the time it takes me to think out and compose myself on issues I care about.

So, huzzah! You win. Fist bumps for all interested parties.

removed the pic, I think selderane has been insulted enough here-ccgr

For the sake of it, I will attempt to celebrate the birth of Christ in May of next year rather than December of this one. Christmas has shifted from a holiday about Jesus into a celebration of humanity and materialism charged with political and religious controversey. So rather than moving that mess off of December 24th/25th, I figured it'd be much easier to move my celebration of the birth of Christ.

Oh, if this somehow catches on, and someone decides to buy a gift in light of it, I will personally destroy the first one I can get my hands on, because that is entirely counterproductive to the original goal.