KillingtonZone.com

As an appellate trial attorney, I can tell you that the position that atheism is a religion makes far more logical sense than the current interpretation of the establishment clause.

By demanding adherence to your position, you directly affect everyone else, no matter what the beliefs. I described the court as a pendulum - it is swinging back towards the center. I do not want nor require you to follow mainstream thought or religion. I would not require you to testify under oath - you could affirm the truthfulness of your statements without any reference to any deity. However, you are demanding that the vast majority abandon all references to any deity in their public lives. Please note that "ad hominem" attacks do not suffice as logic and that I expect the status quo to change.

Why should school choirs limit their music to "Frosty the Snowman"? How are the Boy Scouts a religion? Under your definition they are not, but recent cases disagree. There is an old saying that bad facts make good law? The recent line of cases went too far and imposed your view. The extreme conclusions reached thereafter are driving the changes.

Check the recent affirmative action/college & law school admission cases to see the moderation of policy. Look for centrist positions of inclusion [menorahs, mangers & christmas trees sharing public sites] not exclusivity and elimination. Watch for Title IX cases to stop counting numbers in gross and look for intent and purpose in male/female college athletics. Extremism on either side eliminates rights and opportunities. Look for this court to keep the government out of religious regulation, reproductive regulation [limits on government funding by states- not prohibtion of abortion] and general interference with normal lives.

Doctrinal knee-jerk positions will be replaced with more common sense positions, compromises and solutions.

I have no idea what he's talking about...

Can someone translate...?

DMC wrote:I have no idea what he's talking about...

Can someone translate...?

I am kind of Hung over and I dont ready anything more than a paragraph

Sorry if I get too "legal". It's a curse.

skitiger wrote:Sorry if I get too "legal". It's a curse.

you guys are just like us computer geeks - always having to use big jargon from the trade.

skitiger wrote:As an appellate trial attorney, I can tell you that the position that atheism is a religion makes far more logical sense than the current interpretation of the establishment clause.

By demanding adherence to your position, you directly affect everyone else, no matter what the beliefs. I described the court as a pendulum - it is swinging back towards the center. I do not want nor require you to follow mainstream thought or religion. I would not require you to testify under oath - you could affirm the truthfulness of your statements without any reference to any deity. However, you are demanding that the vast majority abandon all references to any deity in their public lives. Please note that "ad hominem" attacks do not suffice as logic and that I expect the status quo to change.

Why should school choirs limit their music to "Frosty the Snowman"? How are the Boy Scouts a religion? Under your definition they are not, but recent cases disagree. There is an old saying that bad facts make good law? The recent line of cases went too far and imposed your view. The extreme conclusions reached thereafter are driving the changes.

Check the recent affirmative action/college & law school admission cases to see the moderation of policy. Look for centrist positions of inclusion [menorahs, mangers & christmas trees sharing public sites] not exclusivity and elimination. Watch for Title IX cases to stop counting numbers in gross and look for intent and purpose in male/female college athletics. Extremism on either side eliminates rights and opportunities. Look for this court to keep the government out of religious regulation, reproductive regulation [limits on government funding by states- not prohibtion of abortion] and general interference with normal lives.

Doctrinal knee-jerk positions will be replaced with more common sense positions, compromises and solutions.

Skitiger: You are far more optimistic about this court than I am. Especially, with your assertion:

"Look for this court to keep the government out of religious regulation, reproductive regulation [limits on government funding by states- not prohibtion of abortion] and general interference with normal lives.

Doctrinal knee-jerk positions will be replaced with more common sense positions, compromises and solutions."

This is a dogmatically driven crew. I think they will see themselves as "owning" the pendulum and will be deterimined to stop its arc right where they like it. I will grant you that history has given us some amazing surprises in regard to perceptions about Court Nominees and their ultimate positions on crucial issues. A case in point is Earl Warren. Eisenhower was interviewed after his second term and asked what his greatest disappointment or failure was? Dubya must have heard about Eisenhower's answer when he borrowed it during the last debate. Eisenhower said: "...It was the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the SC." Ike didn't like Warren's role in the "Brown v. B.of Ed. Topeka Kansas" case.

The Boy Scouts are not a religion per se. The problem with the scouts is that they EXCLUDE those who won't accede to their demands that members "affirm belief in a deity" while at the same time they seek to use publicly funded facilities at no cost. Tsk, tsk.

The school choir thing is a red herring. We have a multicultural society that has assimilated a great variety of art, music, and literature. As long as choirs present "Holiday" music programs that acknowledge this diversity, I as an Atheist have no issue with it. In my own community the Public HS Chorus (not choir - a term with a slightly more religious connotation) performs Christian, Jewish, secular, Kwanza, and classical pieces during the "Winter Concert." Nobody seems to have a problem with it.

BTW what "ad hominem" attack do you refer to. Whom did I "dis?" Was it the billions of believers" Thinking (or believing) something just doesn't make it so. Lots of people thinking or believing something can certainly create trouble for those who disagree though. That is why we have a constitution that focuses on the will of the majority, with PROTECTION FOR THE RIGHTS OF MINORITIES." Or do we?

tirolerpeter wrote:rpuck...a "Strict Constructionist" would be fine. Guys like Thomas and Scalia strictly construct their decisions to fit their "neocon" views. Thomas is a black man who hates that fact that he is black, and Scalia thinks we should all be reciting the Ten Commandments (his version of course) each morning. Of course, he also does not see a conflict of interest when he accepts "perks" from corporate entities. I'm sure George will choose nominees who "strictly" are willing to kiss his butt, and kick yours if they disagree with you!

You seem to only care about the one side of the court. What about the 4 Liberal judges on the court? They have not interpreted the constitution, they have molded portions of it into LAW, forbidden by the constitution.

Don't know much about Scalia, but to attack Thomas as you have is just wrong. He is a black man and admits it. He worked his butt off to be what he is. What does he get for his efforts, besides his personal success? He is called an Uncle Tom. He ain't no black man. Blacks look DOWN on him because he is a success. That is what the Liberals have taught the black community. Don't work hard or be successful or you will end up like Judge Thomas. How stupid is that?

skitiger wrote:As an appellate trial attorney, I can tell you that the position that atheism is a religion makes far more logical sense than the current interpretation of the establishment clause.

By demanding adherence to your position, you directly affect everyone else, no matter what the beliefs. I described the court as a pendulum - it is swinging back towards the center. I do not want nor require you to follow mainstream thought or religion. I would not require you to testify under oath - you could affirm the truthfulness of your statements without any reference to any deity. However, you are demanding that the vast majority abandon all references to any deity in their public lives. Please note that "ad hominem" attacks do not suffice as logic and that I expect the status quo to change.

Why should school choirs limit their music to "Frosty the Snowman"? How are the Boy Scouts a religion? Under your definition they are not, but recent cases disagree. There is an old saying that bad facts make good law? The recent line of cases went too far and imposed your view. The extreme conclusions reached thereafter are driving the changes.

Check the recent affirmative action/college & law school admission cases to see the moderation of policy. Look for centrist positions of inclusion [menorahs, mangers & christmas trees sharing public sites] not exclusivity and elimination. Watch for Title IX cases to stop counting numbers in gross and look for intent and purpose in male/female college athletics. Extremism on either side eliminates rights and opportunities. Look for this court to keep the government out of religious regulation, reproductive regulation [limits on government funding by states- not prohibtion of abortion] and general interference with normal lives.

Doctrinal knee-jerk positions will be replaced with more common sense positions, compromises and solutions.

A little deep for my feeble mind, but the "establishment clause" is the one that more people, and judges, need to pay attention to. It was "Interpreted" as separation, which it clearly is NOT. You make very good and valid arguements regarding the policies of organizations which were founded using religious MORALS and beliefs. Only wish more judges would think in those terms rather than the contrived "separation" terms.

Dr. No while you and I are free to agree or disagree with other forum members; you and I do not have the right to order each other to:

"Shut Up (even when your imperative includes) and Ski!"

If you do not like what you are reading, feel free to comment or to stop reading and stick to other areas of the forum. Voltaire (You do remember learning about the period of history called the "Enlightenment," don't you?) is reputed to have said: "I totally disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If more of our contemporary society felt so strongly about freedom of speech and expression, we could discuss disagreements rationally and without rancor. We cannot understand that which we do not know. Free and open discourse allows us to keep learning. And, as Martha Stewart always said: "That's a good thing."

tirolerpeter wrote:Dr. No while you and I are free to agree or disagree with other forum members; you and I do not have the right to order each other to:

"Shut Up (even when your imperative includes) and Ski!"

If you do not like what you are reading, feel free to comment or to stop reading and stick to other areas of the forum. Voltaire (You do remember learning about the period of history called the "Enlightenment," don't you?) is reputed to have said: "I totally disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If more of our contemporary society felt so strongly about freedom of speech and expression, we could discuss disagreements rationally and without rancor. We cannot understand that which we do not know. Free and open discourse allows us to keep learning. And, as Martha Stewart always said: "That's a good thing."

Don't take it personally. He tells everyone to "Shut up and SKI" It's
in his signature line.

Sorry if words may be too "high-falutin'", but the reason lawyers use specific words is that have VERY SPECIFIC meanings.

Discrimination against the Boy Scouts is just wrong - an expansion of attacks against organizations for young men. Boy Scouts got into this because it was sued by an openly gay and notoriously promiscuous adult. His conduct was such that if it were similar heterosexual activity, he would again have been denied the responsibility of the leadership of boys on the same moral grounds.

Rated against most organizations [not religions], however, the boy scouts do not discriminate at all. Women are permitted and encouraged in all forms of scout leadership. Boy scouting welcomes teenage girls in its venture and exploring troops, both clearly coeducational. Girl scouts do not permit men to be involved at all. Is this discriminatory? Absolutely, but liberal ideology permits discrimination against men - a separate but equal position with no logic behind it. Where is the outcry against this?

Similarly, many other groups "limit" their membership based upon traditionally objectionable criteria of "race, creed, color, religious beliefs and/or ethnic background". The Congressional Black Caucus refused to admit J.C. Watts, despite his obvious qualifications [congressman and correct race], because they didn't want his conservative position. This federally supported and funded [and paid] group uses federal facilities...

My optimism is based upon the belief that the court has always attempted to find the middle, growing opposition to judicial activism [usually liberal law creation but also conservative reactions] and desire by judges not to be irrelevant. Don't look for cases to be overturned; look for cases to be limited or qualified. Majority decisions are often compromises. The great importance of the chief justice is that he decides which judge writes the opinion if the chief is part of the majority. The opinion must then be crafted to get enough people to agree with it. If you are always in the minority, you get no say in the determining position. If you are part of the majority, you can include your position in its thoughts and retain some influence. Historically, this is particularly true when new appointments set the course of the court for the foreseeable future, an event likely to occur in the next four years.

Besides that, life is more fun if your optimistic. It r*ins less on my golf and skiing than anyone I know, because I don't give up easily. Play early and miss the r*in. Ski higher and enjoy the powder. Smile, it makes the world wonder what you've been up to. :)