Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73383)	8/27/2003 10:21:54 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"They have insisted that government adopt a stance of strict agnosticism, which in effect drives from the public realm all things that smack of religious belief. This establishes, in the literal sense, a uniform regime of atheism in government affairs. (In the literal sense, atheism simply means the absence of God, and this, in the public realm, is what the federal judges and justices insist upon.)" He misses the point here. Government does not ENDORSE atheism, it simply remains mute on the subject of religion. NOT displaying or enforcing a preference for a particular God is not equivalent to disapproval of the concept. The decision of Government (the people) to not endorse a particular God does not equate to any position on the concept of God. His linkage of agnosticism to atheism is inappropriate and fallacious. The committment to "hands-off" is not equivalent to an assertion of atheism. The neutrality of Government on religious matters ought not to discomfort rational people.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73383)	8/27/2003 10:54:22 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

The doctrine of incorporation, which is well- established at this point, rules in this case, and obviates Dr. Keyes's comments: Incorporation One of the greatest changes in the interpretation of the Constitution came with the passage of the 14th Amendment after the conclusion of the Civil War. It was designed to assist newly freed slaves in the transition to freedom and to protect them from acts of the Southern states, and also to overturn the decision in the Dred Scott case that ruled that persons of African descent could not be citizens of the United States even if they were born in the United States. The amendment was successful in this endeavor, legally, if not in reality. But this sentence had and continues to have long-lasting implications on the application of the Bill of Rights to the states: 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. The "Privileges and Immunities Clause" has been interpreted as applying the Bill of Rights, which lists the privileges and immunities of the citizens, to the states. Known as "incorporation," the application of the Bill to the states did not come all at once, nor was it complete. Even today, there are some parts of the Bill which have not been incorporated. The process began unsuccessfully in the late 1800's and continued unsuccessfully right up until the 1930's. In 1947, however, in Adamson v. California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]), the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights. Historians both agreed and disagreed with the Court's contention that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended incorporation since its passage ... but historians do not sit on the Court. Their opinions were less important than those of the Justices. The process of selectively incorporating the clauses of the Bill of Rights probably began in Twining v. New Jersey (268 U.S. 652 [1925]) which contemplated the incorporation of some of the aspects of the 8th Amendment - not because they were a part of the Bill of Rights but because they seemed to be fundamental to the concept of due process. This process of incorporating parts of the Bill of Rights because of their connection to due process began to run in parallel with the selective incorporation doctrine, where parts of the Bill of Rights were ruled to be enforceable on the states by virtue of the 14th Amendments, whether or not due process applied. Thus in the early 1960's, the Establishment Clause, the right to counsel, the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition, and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures were quickly incorporated. Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment). usconstitution.net

To: Lane3 who wrote (73383)	8/27/2003 2:29:06 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Alan Keyes is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...this, especially, is incorrect: -it violates Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by subverting the republican form of government with respect to this right; and by aiming coercively to establish an agnostic regime of atheism at all levels of government. An agnostic regime of ATHEISM? please. No one is interested in a regime that denies anything. I wonder if he realizes how silly it is to mix up agnosticism with atheism when they are totally different things. An agnostic regime would be a questioning regime- since we don't KNOW, and atheistic regime would presume to have a valid answer and be more like the religious folks. Silly silly Mr Keyes.