The Death of the US Constitution - First Amendment

[Bill]

To give another example of how "conservativism" is destroying the country and despoiling the constitution...

I remember a time when my conservative friends used to hand me copies of the Constitution, and say "This is it. This is what we must swear to protect."

==========================
The State of the First Amendment

I wrote a few weeks ago about a survey suggesting many Americans can name more judges on American Idol than rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Well, the First Amendment Center has released its annual "State of the First Amendment" report, and the results paint a similar picture.

The survey (available here) started by asking participants to name specific rights protected by the First Amendment. The most common one people named was "freedom of speech," which 64% identified. It goes downhill quickly from there:


19% - Freedom of religion

16% - Freedom of the press

16% - Right to assemble.

3% - Right to petition the government for redress of grievances

To be honest, I probably wouldn't have gotten all five if put on the spot (I probably would have lumped the right to assemble and the right to petition the government together). But 3% on the last one? That's lower than the report's margin of error.

And that's just the first question in the report. Later questions moved beyond basic knowledge and measured respondents' opinions about various rights. The most widely reported finding was that the majority of Americans (55%) believe the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Half also say teachers should be allowed to use the Bible as a factual text in a history or social studies class.

Thirty-seven percent also think the media shouldn't be allowed to "freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance." Other notable findings:

28% believe the freedom to worship granted by the Constitution does not apply to fringe or extreme groups.

58% believe teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public school, down from a high of 65% in 1999.

60% believe that people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend religious groups, up from 46% in 2000.

41% believe people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend racial groups, up from 23% in 1997.

25% believe the First Amendment goes too far in granting rights, that is down from 39% in 2001.

That last point is interesting. The good news is that the public is backing away from restrictive attitudes that followed 9/11. But it's strange that 25% think the First Amendment goes too far, when the first question suggests that many of those people don't even know what rights are protected under it.

http://www.ablogistan.com/archives/2007/09/the_state_of_th.html

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031

[Bill]

The most widely reported finding was that the majority of Americans (55%) believe the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Half also say teachers should be allowed to use the Bible as a factual text in a history or social studies class.

Thirty-seven percent also think the media shouldn't be allowed to "freely criticize the U.S. military about its strategy and performance." Other notable findings:

28% believe the freedom to worship granted by the Constitution does not apply to fringe or extreme groups.

58% believe teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public school, down from a high of 65% in 1999.

60% believe that people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend religious groups, up from 46% in 2000.


This is their purity principle morality at work - and think about this - the conservatives would look at these statistics and interpret them as a GOOD THING.

They think interpreting the constitution as REALLY meaning that they should have the right to boss minorities around, and deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is a GOOD, MORAL, and RIGHTEOUS thing.

They don't see it as destroying the constitution.

[moonman]

I forget which years and the Bill # but during the Republican majority of 1994-06, the wackos actually were advancing the idea of replacing the constitution with something called Biblical Law.

[radioguy]

I forget which years and the Bill # but during the Republican majority of 1994-06, the wackos actually were advancing the idea of replacing the constitution with something called Biblical Law.

I call BS. Show me the bill.

I do agree with you (If I understand you correctly) that trying to incorporate Biblical Law as the law of the land, is about as whacked as it gets. What I don't understand however, is why you don't see it as a threat that radical Muslims are trying to force sharia law on western societies such as our own, and in many cases using violence and murder to accomplish this.

[radioguy]

They think interpreting the constitution as REALLY meaning that they should have the right to boss minorities around, and deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is a GOOD, MORAL, and RIGHTEOUS thing.

C'mon. Do you really believe that?

Where do you get such notions?

What you are saying is, that conservatives either want to, or do discriminate against minorities, and I think the liberal left is more guilty of discrimination and racism, than the right is.

[Bill]

What I don't understand however, is why you don't see it as a threat that radical Muslims are trying to force sharia law on western societies such as our own, and in many cases using violence and murder to accomplish this.

Because I don't see it as a credible threat.

A small group of religious fanatics can't force anything on an industrial and post-industrial state.

It's not a war when one side doesn't have an industrial capacity.

[Bill]

C'mon. Do you really believe that?


I wouldn't say it if I didn't believe it. Admittedly I'm using a generalism, suggesting "all" conservatives, when there are stated conservatives who don't see things that way.

However, those economic conservatives have been co-opted, as a social movement, by christian extremists. Making my generalization accurate enough for rhetorical purposes.

As to where I get the notions, the reasons are stated in the conslusions of the first amendment poll that I referenced.

I thought that was quite clear.

28% believe the freedom to worship granted by the Constitution does not apply to fringe or extreme groups.

60% believe that people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend religious groups, up from 46% in 2000.

---

I don't experience the liberal left as trying to change the constitution.

I don't see liberal leftist judges on the supreme court, trying to change the constitution.

So I'm not seeing how your second comment applies.

[moonman]

I call BS. Show me the bill.

I do agree with you (If I understand you correctly) that trying to incorporate Biblical Law as the law of the land, is about as whacked as it gets. What I don't understand however, is why you don't see it as a threat that radical Muslims are trying to force sharia law on western societies such as our own, and in many cases using violence and murder to accomplish this.

google the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 for the most recent attempt. Theocracy Watch has done a fine job exposing the agenda or the American Taliban. You'll find the Constitution REstation Act and other attempts of in effect having our elected representatives, 'swear on the Constituion that they will uphold the Bible" here; http://www.theocracywatch.org/

And an apology or an admission you are wrong for a calling a post of mine B.S. will be accepted.

As for your asumption that I don't view radical Islamists as a threat you are wrong again. I disagree passionately with the Bush/Cheney policy of dealing with them.

Guerrilla warfare employing low tech tacitics has historically proved effective against high tech, highly organized societies such as ours. Perhaps the best example in history of a high tech society defeating terrorists is France in Algiers. Could it be this was why France was among the first to suggest that Bush/Cheney are ah, nuts?

You defeat terrorism with covert rather than overt acts. It requires boots on the the ground and infiltration of terrorist organizations. Are you telling me that a couple California nitwits can become members of Al Qaida but our CIA and DIA can't?

[radioguy]

I would apologize to you if what you had posted was true, but that's not the case.

The interpretation you posted of that bill was twisted and mangled by a far left, anti-conservative, anti-religion website known as yuricareport.com. I copied this from their "About us" page:

Today, there’s a foul wind in the air. America stinks of open hatred, arrogance, greed and a lust for power. There’s a smug complacency brought about, no doubt by a sense of personal comfort that deludes millions into thinking that because they belong to the “in” group—hellish results will be visited only upon another class of Americans. So they live without protest, watching the Republican party become the instrument of the religious right, letting freedoms be torn away from the cloth—the very fabric of our country, and they say nothing. They will endure any hardship so long as they do not have to take a stand against the violent and corrupt among us. Satisfied with the twists and turns this country has made in the last two years, the fiddlers fiddle, while America burns its resources, its dollars, its credibility, its young men and women, and the very heart of our Constitution.

With your help, we can and will change the winds blowing in this nation. Liberty and freedom belong to all Americans, not just to a selected elite. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have spread poison all over America. It’s a worse poison than anthrax or nerve gas. Those poisons will only kill our bodies, but the poison of the right wing talk show hosts and the religious right can and does enslave the souls of a free people and destroys all that is good and pure and noble in this land.

That bill was written to protect any state that passed a law allowing for a public nativity scene, or a display of the ten commandments in a county courthouse, etc... from being overturned at the federal level. It was written to allow a state to legally, if the citizens so choose, to display religious symbols publicly during a religious holiday, without being subjected to judicial oversight at the federal level.

Here is the interpretation of that bill from a credible source, the Thomas Law Library:

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.



This bill did not, as you claimed, attempt to replace the constitution with Biblical Law, or anything else. What it attempted to do, was prohibit any federal court from interpreting our constitutional law, or English common law, based on the policies or actions of foreign state or organization.

So if anyone owes an apology here, it is you, for making the false claim that conservatives were attempting to replace the US Constitution.

[Linkster]

Interpretations are only good if all of the parts are included - the most important part of that bill was the very first section:

Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government

Sounds perfectly like a substitution of religious law over common sense law

The important concept here is that the Constitution itself only mentions religion once in the entire document - it states that state and federal office holders "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

When the Bill of Rights was added through the amendment process the original discussion that was submitted and approved by the House of Rep was
"The Committee of the Whole (headed by Madison, and established to propose the Bill of Rights to the House) debated the freedom of religion clause. Some members thought the clause would have a negative effect, and could even abolish religion. Madison defended the provision, and stated it was only meant to "prevent Congress from making 'laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion.'" and even "suggested that the word 'national' be inserted before 'religion. A Representative of New Hampshire proposed, and the committee approved the language that read; "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or infringing the rights of conscience"

The Senate unfortunately did all of their discussion in secret so there isnt much to go on except that after the discussions they came up with had a few versions:
Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others." and "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.

Then, in 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the version which was agreed upon is as follows; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and made it a part of the freedom amentment with the press, speech etc

The final thing to realize is that each state has its own constitution - and at least 6 of the states at the time of the constitutional congress already had separation of church and state clauses - and to this day many still do - although the good thing about the US Constitution is that it gives the freedom of most decisions to be made by the states

If the guy from Alabama had been sucessful with his bill back in 2004, the only thing he would be doing is taking their state restrictions on freedom of religion and applying them to the entire US - which is why it failed

[moonman]

Exactly Linkster and thanks for saving me some time. I also appreciate your short essay on the development of the language fo the First Amendment.

The effect of, "by reason of that ellement's or officer's acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government" would be to permit a Jurist to disregard sentencing guidelines in favor of a punishment described in Leviticus or some other section of the Bible and that desicion could not be reviewed or appealed.

According to this a modern day Abraham might not be guilty of attempted murder if the Court accepted the defense that God told him to kill his own son as a sacrifice.

[kres24GT]

The death of the constitution is bipartisan effort supported by a vast a majority of Americans.

A limited federal government with states having most of the power is not a country Americans want.

Americans have a view of how they think things should be and they want you to be forced to think the same way. The politcians are all too happy to oblige, ignoring the Constitution if need be.

[Jennifer]

Actually, yes, teachers should be allowed to practice their religion without hindrance from the government.

It's freedom OF, not freedom FROM.

[Linkster]

I agree - teachers should be - and are as far as I know - allowed to practice their religion - just not in a classroom of children who are being raised by their parents to many different religions as that then becomes imposing your beliefs on someone else and that has been shown in constitutional law to be against the purpose of the amendments in the constitution.

They can go practice their beliefs anywhere where it does not infringe on anyones elses rights as well - heck if they want to believe in dragons, fairies and other religious and mythical creatures just like any religions fairy tales - we have plenty of room to do it in this country

[Jennifer]

If I, as a teacher, wish to pray to my god just before class starts to be guided to teach the children present in the best possible method, I should not be fired and thrown in jail for doing so.

Besides, Mao Tse Tung and L. Ron Hubbard arn't recognized as official religions. :P

[Linkster]

Actually - a teacher can do that - as long as its not in front of impressionable children that may have other religious beliefs

And I believe that Mao Tse Tung and L. Ron Hubbard are recognized religions although I figure you are just playing on that one