Paul's Letter to the Observer

[Guest Guest]

There's also nothing in the Constitution that prohibits racially-based death threats, for example. In this case, I think the wording gives a good general idea on tax dollar-funded 'things' needing to be religiously neutral. And preaching of a religion certainly violates that, no?

Well, yeah. Hopefully not, obviously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The wording of the Constition actually does not give a good general idea on tax dollar funded 'things' needing to be religiously neutral. We've relied on case law for that.

[Guest Guest]

If you're making the point that some poltically motivated, right wing judiciary could distort all meaning out of Constitution principles, unfortunately you are correct. If you're arguing that those principles are not clear from the text and all the documents surrounding adoption of the Constitution, and its historical context, I respectfully but vehemently disagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My argument was to the former. However, I respectfully disagree with how clear the text and the documents surrounding the adoption of the Constitution were (and this may just boil down to semantics, but I would like to make my point regardless).

As I am sure you know, many of the "founding fathers" wanted the country to endorse a single religion (as evidenced in a significant amount of some of the more theocentric work product from the Constitutional Congress). When Jefferson and others balked, the decision to leave the proscription in its simplified terms was a compromise between and among the parties. Accordingly, other than the major proscription on establishment of a religion, much was left open for future interpretation. Fortunately, Jefferson's level-headed approach to religion ("But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg") set a tone for several generations. If I'm not mistaken, it really wasn't until the McCarthy era when legal challenges to the extent of the Establishment Clause began (which lead to the change in the Pledge of Allegiance).

It's an odd twist of fate that many people are now so concerned with allowing the government to intertwine with faith when - during the Jefferson era - Jefferson's decree of a "wall of separation" between church and state was in defense of religious liberties. Specifically, in his Danbury letter, Jefferson espoused the wall of separation to protect a religious minority in the State of Connecticut (google Jefferson Danbury letter - wherein he may have first used the phrase "wall of separation"). The purpose for his letter was that the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that in the State of Connecticut , the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature ("favors granted").

By your reply to my post, I know you understand just how easily we can slip back to a point where our rights to worship as we please can be infringed upon by the government. I am trying to highlight the tenuous nature of this rule - not to cast doubt on the strength of Matthew's cause - but instead to highlight to his dissentors that there is a sound reason for the Establishment Clause that has foundations in the PROTECTION of religious liberties.

[Guest Guest]

Well, I guess we are even.  You believe I didn't satisfactorily answer your question and I do not believe that your above response has clarified the dress/skirt issue either. 

I do believe that I answered your question regarding the credibility issue.  It is important to me.  If you are okay with even one person, anonymous or not, believing your credibility is at issue, so be it.

I do not believe you have clarified the dress/skirt issue because the above quote by you is exactly the statement that contradicts your original statement on this subject.

But, since it only appears that we are going around in circles on this, I am willing to no longer continute this discussion, but will, in my own mind continue to believe that you are either flip-flopping on this or playing the "semantics game".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul knows that, in the world of lawyers, credibilty is meaningless.

[Guest Paul]

My argument was to the former.  However, I respectfully disagree with how clear the text and the documents surrounding the adoption of the Constitution were (and this may just boil down to semantics, but I would like to make my point regardless). 

As I am sure you know, many of the "founding fathers" wanted the country to endorse a single religion (as evidenced in a significant amount of some of the more theocentric work product from the Constitutional Congress).  When Jefferson and others balked, the decision to leave the proscription in its simplified terms was a compromise between and among the parties.  Accordingly, other than the major proscription on establishment of a religion, much was left open for future interpretation.  Fortunately, Jefferson's level-headed approach to religion ("But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg") set a tone for several generations.  If I'm not mistaken, it really wasn't until the McCarthy era when legal challenges to the extent of the Establishment Clause began (which lead to the change in the Pledge of Allegiance). 

It's an odd twist of fate that many people are now so concerned with allowing the government to intertwine with faith when - during the Jefferson era - Jefferson's decree of a "wall of separation" between church and state was in defense of religious liberties.  Specifically, in his Danbury letter, Jefferson espoused the wall of separation to protect a religious minority in the State of Connecticut (google Jefferson Danbury letter - wherein he may have first used the phrase "wall of separation").  The purpose for his letter was that the Danbury Baptist Association was concerned that in the State of Connecticut , the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature ("favors granted").

By your reply to my post, I know you understand just how easily we can slip back to a point where our rights to worship as we please can be infringed upon by the government.  I am trying to highlight the tenuous nature of this rule - not to cast doubt on the strength of Matthew's cause - but instead to highlight to his dissentors that there is a sound reason for the Establishment Clause that has foundations in the PROTECTION of religious liberties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your points are all well-taken. I hope you didn't read me to imply that the Constitution is crystal clear down to the last detail.

Many of us believe that the future of religion is in how we treat each other and live in the world. Those religious liberties are just as deserving of protection as any others.

[Guest Paul]

Paul knows that, in the world of lawyers, credibilty is meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are so wrong. Among my colleagues, credibility is of paramount importance. Attorneys who cannot be trusted gather a reputation that follows them like a dark cloud. Many people have a negative perception of lawyers because the laws don't always make sense intuitively, but if you think we're all that different from anyone else, you're very wrong.

[Foger]

This forum ignores IMG tags for some reason...noticed that earlier.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hmmm considering the forum supplied those tags..... I want my money back...

Anyway this is for that poster who had a wee bit of a misunderstanding back a ways.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e101/FogerRox/sarcasm.jpg

[Guest Guest]

You are so wrong. Among my colleagues, credibility is of paramount importance. Attorneys who cannot be trusted gather a reputation that follows them like a dark cloud. Many people have a negative perception of lawyers because the laws don't always make sense intuitively, but if you think we're all that different from anyone else, you're very wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now you want to blame the law for people's perception of attorneys. You must be kidding.

There are very few lawyers who wouldn't say or do anything to get an outcome in their favor.

I'd start a list but it would be way to long for this forum.

[Guest Guest]

You are so wrong. Among my colleagues, credibility is of paramount importance. Attorneys who cannot be trusted gather a reputation that follows them like a dark cloud. Many people have a negative perception of lawyers because the laws don't always make sense intuitively, but if you think we're all that different from anyone else, you're very wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That again is your personal perception of how the people of Kearny think of lawyers. But for once I find myself agreeing with you. You are very different from the rest of the people of Kearny. Most of them are trying to make a decent living from a middle class blue collar town. You however are one of those lawyers who people perceive living under a rock, looking for personal gain. Attempting to make a profit of the misfortunes of others and waving the flag of freedom like you are the almighty righteous.

So that is how the people of Kearny clearly perceive you.

[Guest Guest]

Many of us believe that the future of religion is in how we treat each other and live in the world. Those religious liberties are just as deserving of protection as any others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you please explain what religion it is you are talking about in your above statement? Are you creating a new religion? Is it based on other religions and if so what ones? Would like this clarified so that if that talk about how they treat each other in class it might be construed as a religion and therefore reprimands might be imposed.

[Strife767]

Now you want to blame the law for people's perception of attorneys.  You must be kidding.

There are very few lawyers who wouldn't say or do anything to get an outcome in their favor.

Amazing. Why don't you explain the irrational prejudice against lawyers to Paul then? I mean, since you apparently have a lot of experience with it. Sheesh.

[Strife767]

Could you please explain what religion it is you are talking about in your above statement? Are you creating a new religion? Is it based on other religions and if so what ones?

These statements show that what Paul said clearly went over your head. Don't think in such minute terms. He's not talking about about starting a new religion or anything like that. Try reading it again.

[Guest DodgeCity]

Now you want to blame the law for people's perception of attorneys.  You must be kidding.

There are very few lawyers who wouldn't say or do anything to get an outcome in their favor.

I'd start a list but it would be way to long for this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just like those fraud lawyers just south of ******** ave. Fix another go go dancers parking ticket,They should be charged with fraud, conspiacy to defraud and racketeering.

KOTW Note: The above post was edited for content.

[Guest Paul]

Could you please explain what religion it is you are talking about in your above statement?  Are you creating a new religion? Is it based on other religions and if so what ones?  Would like this clarified so that if that talk about how they treat each other in class it might be construed as a religion and therefore reprimands might be imposed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The word religion comes from two Latin words: re, which means to look upon all things, and ligare, which means to bind together, as a ligament does. If you look at the life and history of religion, you will see an attempt to explain (the world, the universe, however broad the person's conceptions are) and to make sense out of it all. From that conception comes a way of living. That is the religious life. In my view, and the view of many others, religion has gone horribly astray, jumping to unsound conclusions and dividing humanity instead of pulling us together.

I see a strong future for a religion that recognizes the limits of our knowledge, but at the same time encourages people to act in ways that bring out the best in ourselves, the world and each other; and focuses centrally on how we treat each other, the natural world and ourselves. You could call that religion Humanism, but in fact there are elements of it in all the major religions, including Christianity. So you could also call it Christianity, or Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. It is hardly new with me. It is emerging and taking shape all the time, and has been doing so for centuries, arguably for milennia. None of us will dictate its form, but each of us can play a role in shaping it. The form of the emerging religion will be a product of people's hopes and aspirations. Thus has it always been.

[Nicky]

I honestly cannot believe that people are making such a big deal out of this. Skirts and dresses are not the same thing! Furthermore, it's not like Matt is the only boy to ever wear a skirt (or whatever it was, because I haven't seen it) to school to protest the fact that shorts are often only allowable after days or even weeks of forcing the guys to suffer through high temperatures in un-air-conditioned classrooms wearing long pants while girls can often wear skirts so short that they look like tramps. Hell, I saw an MTV special on a group of boys that did it once, and I'm talking so long ago that I was still in high school at the time (at least five years ago, at most nine). And people really need to stop swearing Mr. P "never preached to me!" Maybe he didn't do it to your class specifically, but I highly doubt that. Myself and several of my friends who had him during different class periods during the same year noticed it and applauded the fact that someone finally stood up to the jerk. There was also an instance of a TEACHER complaining about the same thing at a Board of Ed meeting around '96, as told to me by someone who was on the Board of Education at that time and heard the whole thing (whose name I won't mention because I don't know how he'd feel about that). He was told to stop, but clearly he didn't. Why haven't we fired this man yet?

[Guest Guest]

You could call it a skirt, but you it doesn't look like anything most of the girls wear. You couldn't fairly call it a dress.

Good grief, talk about having nothing to do. Someone please tell me what this has to do with anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly! And for everyone who needs to quote Paul word for word, he used the word "skirt" as an expression....There are "gothic" clothings that L O O K like skirts, but are NOT skirts, did I lose anyone yet? It is (most of the time) black with chains hanging from the belt hoops. Your next petty question will be did he wear pants under it! Get a life already. At this point I don't even care anymore whose wrong or right, I'm just so sick of hearing about this topic. Webmaster Isn't there a limit to how many posts one topic can have? If not, maybe you should set one.

[Strife767]

I honestly cannot believe that people are making such a big deal out of this. Skirts and dresses are not the same thing! Furthermore, it's not like Matt is the only boy to ever wear a skirt (or whatever it was, because I haven't seen it) to school to protest the fact that shorts are often only allowable after days or even weeks of forcing the guys to suffer through high temperatures in un-air-conditioned classrooms wearing long pants while girls can often wear skirts so short that they look like tramps. Hell, I saw an MTV special on a group of boys that did it once, and I'm talking so long ago that I was still in high school at the time (at least five years ago, at most nine). And people really need to stop swearing Mr. P "never preached to me!" Maybe he didn't do it to your class specifically, but I highly doubt that. Myself and several of my friends who had him during different class periods during the same year noticed it and applauded the fact that someone finally stood up to the jerk. There was also an instance of a TEACHER complaining about the same thing at a Board of Ed meeting around '96, as told to me by someone who was on the Board of Education at that time and heard the whole thing (whose name I won't mention because I don't know how he'd feel about that). He was told to stop, but clearly he didn't. Why haven't we fired this man yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And more accounts of the 'non-uniqueness' of the incident(s) come out. Not surprising in the least.

Also, if this is Nicole R. who posted as a 'guest' a while back, welcome back, and glad to see some more sanity coming out of Kearny itself.

[Mroberts3]

Establishment clause of the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. Oh sorry, thats  not a law.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a joke, right?

Almost makes you wonder about democracy sometimes...