Merlyn_LeRoy

Ed, there always seems to be enough money to pander to the religious right, as in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, where congress moved "in god we trust" off the edge of the presidential dollar coins to the front or back. And the plates for bills $5 and up were recently changed, IGWT could have been removed at that time. Bills may have to be changed again if the 2007 verdict in favor of the American Council of the Blind is upheld, so there's another possible "free" opportunity.

Beavah writes: Of course, there is an additional remedy other than impeachment, eh? That's prosecution by the subsequent administration. A second remedy (sort of), but it's more like karma. It's when a subsequent administration continues to (ab)use the same powers but for a radically different agenda.

Atheism isn't a religion either, but the first amendment covers both theism and atheism. If it's legal to have "in god we trust" it's also legel to have "in Jesus we trust"

How is that bigoted? He was comparing the number of nontheists to the total number of Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews in the US. How is "the Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish religions" nicer?

Ed writes: Yeah ya are Merlyn! Having the word God on anything to do with the government is not promoting any religion! It's promoting theism. Wanting it removed is trying to force your beliefs on the masses! Nope, that's being neutral. Having something like "gods are myths" would be trying to force my beliefs on the masses. The difference is, you have no problem when the government promotes religious beliefs that agree with yours, while I don't want the government to promote any kind of religious stance, including atheism, even if it does agree with my beliefs.

Ed writes: Since I believe in God, I would say it should be left alone or taken out altogether. So it's OK if the government pushes your religious views, but not OK if they oppose them. That's not religious freedom, Ed. That's government favoritism. And you are a religious fanatic, Merlyn. Atheism is a belief system and religions are belief systems so that makes you a religious fanatic! Atheism isn't a belief system, Ed, but even ignoring that, you may have missed that I'm not advocating that the government favor atheism. You're the one who wants government favoritism, not me.

TheScout re constitutional interpretation: Lete everyone decide! Like I said, you've reduced supreme court opinions to the level of a movie review. Why bother having them at all, then?

Ed writes: No Merlyn you're not correct. No one is telling anyone who or what to believe in. If that is the inference you are getting then that's your interpretation. So if the pledge was changed to "under no god," there'd be no problems having children recite that every morning, right? Well based on this statement "And I don't use governmental power to tell children what their religious views ought to be, Ed. Eisenhower did" I got the impression you thought you weren't [a fanatic] I'm not a religious fanatic that abuses governmental power to coerce children, no. But there's nothing wrong with being a fanatic per se.

Ed writes, quoting me: Ed, it's telling them they should believe in god. And I don't use governmental power to tell children what their religious views ought to be, Ed. Eisenhower did. No it's not Merlyn! No you don't use governmental power, Merlyn, but your tactics are fanatical in nature! Well Ed, as to your first assertion, if "under god" isn't telling children to believe in god, changing it to "under no god" wouldn't be telling them there isn't a god either, right? So there'd be no constitutional problem with having public schools have kids recite that every morning, correct? As for my tactics being fanatical in nature, I have to ask . . . . . . . so?

TheScout writes: Meryln's theory of Presidential legitimatism shows how literalism is a faulty method of Constitutional interpretation. There are many vague parts. It isn't my theory. This is why it is important to look at the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution and the States that ratified it. Sure. Now could you answer my question from earlier? I've already posited a situation where congress says X is constitutional and SCOTUS says it isn't, so now where do you turn to determine what is consistent with the constitution?

Oh, them and more. The article says Zachary Taylor is the last legitimate US president.

It's pretty funny Hal, here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/takingtextandstructurereallyseriously.pdf Lots of other bizarre things, too. If you can't read the PDF, the short form is: Article II, section 1: The constitutional text explicitly restricts eligibility to those persons who were "natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Article VII in turn provides that "[t]he Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution." Washington was from Virginia, which was the 10th to ratify. He was not a citizen of the US when the constitution was adopted, he was a citizen of Virginia, which was not part of the US "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."

TheScout writes: "What? Why not? If the government can ignore the court on what their powers are, why can't they also ignore what they can spend money on? You appear to be making a completely arbitrary distinction." Well they can of course. But if they ignore the Constitution on "what they can spend money on" - they are violating the Constitution. But if congress insists the constitution says they CAN spend money on it, it's OK, right? The Constitution does not give the SCOTUS the final say on the Constitution, so by ignoring a faulty ruling, the are not violating the Constitution. And if congress considers a court ruling that says "congress can't spend money on X" as faulty, they can ignore and continue to spend money on it, right? "And if congress considers a SCOTUS decision that says they may not raise and spend funds on X, they can ignore that too, right? Or can't they?" Yes . . . if the SCOTUS's ruling is not consistent with the Constitution. Uh, how do you determine that last bit? Does congress have to ask you, personally? I've already posited a situation where congress says X is constitutional and SCOTUS says it isn't, so now where do you turn to determine what is consistent with the constitution? "Where's the line?" The Constitution! So far, people just in this newsgroup disagree on whether education and health are covered. So where's the line? I've been saying this for a long time. I don't make this up. Its only a couple of pages long. Everyone should read it! I have. Do you realize George Washington wasn't eligible to be president?

TheScout writes: You are smart enough to know that the spending power is not unlimited. The federal government can not spend for purposes that are unconstitutional, whether a court says so or not. What? Why not? If the government can ignore the court on what their powers are, why can't they also ignore what they can spend money on? You appear to be making a completely arbitrary distinction. I agree that the other branches could "ignore" a SCOTUS decision if it is not in keeping with the Constitution. And if congress considers a SCOTUS decision that says they may not raise and spend funds on X, they can ignore that too, right? Or can't they? There are three branches to the federal government as well as the states. They all have the duty to interpret the Constitution in undertaking their roles. But why can't congress interpret their role to raise and spend funds on something the SCOTUS says is unconstitutional? Can't they ignore that ruling too, and make their own interpretation? Where's the line?

Ed, it's telling them they should believe in god. And I don't use governmental power to tell children what their religious views ought to be, Ed. Eisenhower did.

TheScout writes: No. But the federal government has been barred from doing other things that it does not have the power to do under the Constitution. Well, yes. But it hasn't been barred from health care & education. So if the federal government decides to e.g. spend money on health care, it looks like they will. Given your earlier comments on courts vs. governmental power, I would think that your view would be that even if the supreme court ruled against federal health care spending, the government could ignore the ruling anyway. Last time your description of court opinions seemed to be about the same level as a movie review -- the government can pay attention to it, or not. However, once again I would contend that any court is not the sole judge of the constitution but we have been through that before . . . Exactly. So even if the supreme court stated unequivocally that the federal government does not have the power to create a federal health care program, the government could ignore that ruling and do it anyway, right?

So do you have any cites of successful court cases against federal involvement in health care or education, on the basis that the federal government lacks the power to do so?

Here's what Eisenhower said when he signed legislation adding 'under god' to the pledge of allegiance: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." He seemed to have no problem telling millions of scholchildren what their religious beliefs ought to be; I'd call anyone like that a religious fanatic.

Ed, your questions and remarks don't even make sense. I use currency with religious propaganda on it because I don't have an alternative. No, money shouldn't have religious propaganda on it, but that was done by religious fanatics like Rev. M. R. Watkinson and Salmon P. Chase, and president Eisenhower long before I was born.

The same way you live with government-financed abortions, Ed.

Part of the reason to fight things like the motto on money is that either people say it's somehow not religious, and so it's fine to put up in public schools, or they point to it as justification for, say, putting their religious tenets in front of city hall.

So you really think that it's not hypocritical to expect Barack Obama to be the head of an organization that would exclude his own mother for not having "acceptable" religious views? And what if he accepts, but publicly criticizes the BSA for their policies and says they should change them?

(oops, title should read 19 atheist/agnostic organizations etc etc) www.americanhumanist.org/press/Obama_scouts.php President-Elect Obama Asked to Turn Down Boy Scouts of America For Immediate Release - Contact Roy Speckhardt at (202) 238-9088 rspeckhardt@americanhumanist.org - www.americanhumanist.org (Washington, D.C., January 13, 2009) The American Humanist Association, in conjunction with eighteen other nontheistic (atheist and agnostic) organizations, sent a letter today to President-Elect Barack Obama urging him to decline the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. BSA policy is to deny the participation of nontheistic members and employees and expel those already involved. Thus the letter asks Obama to break with tradition because taking on the title of honorary president would send a message that discrimination against atheists and agnostics is acceptable. "President-elect Obama was himself raised by a mother whom he described as a secular humanist, a remarkable woman who was very much a religious skeptic," said AHA President David Niose. "As such, he surely realizes that, if he were to accept the current Boy Scout standard, he would be endorsing discrimination against the same value system under which he was raised." The full text of the letter appears below: January 13, 2009 Dear President-Elect Barack Obama: In light of your campaign promise to bring the nation together in a spirit of change we need, we, the undersigned nontheist organizations, urge you to take this opportunity to signify that discrimination against atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other nontheists will not be condoned. Thus we write to urge you to decline the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA has acted vigorously in recent years to expel atheist and agnostic members and employees. This policy expresses the Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, 1, cl. 1: The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law." The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. The BSA has elected to set itself apart as a private organization that may discriminate in ways contrary to the laws and practices required of local, state, and federal authorities. Accepting the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America would thus send the message that institutional discrimination against people who dont happen to believe in a god is acceptable. Many presidents of the United States have taken on the title of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America. However, this tradition was established when discrimination against nontheists was, unfortunately, socially acceptable. Given that nontheists now make up a sizeable minority of the American population-having more numbers than Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews combined-the BSA is clearly out of touch with the spirit of pluralism, tolerance, and inclusiveness that compose todays American values. By contrast, in 1993 the Girl Scouts of the United States of America adopted more inclusive policies. Therefore, please decline the title and role of honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America until such time as the organization reforms its bylaws and practices to be non-discriminatory. Yours in unity, American Atheists American Ethical Union American Humanist Association Atheist Alliance International Atheist Nexus Camp Quest Center for Atheism Center for Inquiry Center for Naturalism Council for Secular Humanism Freedom From Religion Foundation FreeThoughtAction HUUmanists Institute for Humanist Studies International Federation for Secular & Humanistic Judaism Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers Secular Coalition for America Secular Student Alliance Society for Humanistic Judaism (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

"Just as African-Americans could ride on Montgomery's buses, but not in the front, the Scouts permit plaintiffs to make use of Camp Balboa and the Mission Bay Park Youth Aquatic Center, but do not allow them to be members of their organization and participate in the activities conducted at the camps for members," Berzon wrote. "In either case, use of a valuable public facility is made contingent on acceptance of imposed second-class status within a controlling organization's social hierarchy." also The Council also controls Camp Balboa's reservations. It pencils in reservations as far in advance as it wishes and then advertises the pre-reserved times to its members. The Council can declare the camp "closed," determine how many people are going to attend the camps, and then open up only the unreserved facilities to the public. For example, the Desert Pacific Council advertised camping dates for all of 2002 in its Winter 2001 newsletter. In October 2002, it had already reserved the campsites for its 2003 summer camp. The 2001 reservation books show that the camp was closed during the Desert Pacific Council's spring and summer camps.

Mere offense is not the basis of their standing, nor the basis of their lawsuit.