Rep. Michael Turner of Ohio had a boy who is described as an Eagle Scout request a flag that had been flown over the U.S. Capitol to be presented in honor of the boy's grandfather to him. The boy requested that the inscription on the certificate to read: "In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family". When the flag was presented to the grandfather, the word 'God' was omitted. Rep. Turner gained the support of more than 100 of his Republican collegues in a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi requesting the Architect of the Capitol be limited in the censuring of the certificates requested by U.S. citizens. In Speaker Pelosi's response, she defended the Architect's judgement of what is appropriate, even though she notes every morning, Congress begins their day with a prayer.
Click here!
To be debated:
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
By the way, this is my first topic I created, so take it easy on the format criticism, but if you have suggestions on how members prefer their topics, please send me a message.(edited to add this statement)
Click here!
To be debated:
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
By the way, this is my first topic I created, so take it easy on the format criticism, but if you have suggestions on how members prefer their topics, please send me a message.(edited to add this statement)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
Clearly not. The inscription, as requested, was a description of the recipient, and not a policy stance of the US government. I'm pretty sure the Architect of the Capitol doesn't set US policy or create any laws.
Note to Americans: the mere use of the word "God" is not un-Constitutional.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
Yes they are wrong. If the requested inscription is inappropriate, the request will not be granted in the first place. It is not the place of the Architect to make decisions about the Constitutionality of some incription. I wonder if he is gonna change the inscription on coins without Congressonal approval...
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Yes. But then again, she's an all-around boob.
Clearly not. The inscription, as requested, was a description of the recipient, and not a policy stance of the US government. I'm pretty sure the Architect of the Capitol doesn't set US policy or create any laws.
Note to Americans: the mere use of the word "God" is not un-Constitutional.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
Yes they are wrong. If the requested inscription is inappropriate, the request will not be granted in the first place. It is not the place of the Architect to make decisions about the Constitutionality of some incription. I wonder if he is gonna change the inscription on coins without Congressonal approval...
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Yes. But then again, she's an all-around boob.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 01:58 PM) 
To be debated:
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
No of course not. Freedom OF religion... not NO religion EVER. Big difference.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 01:58 PM)
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
Depends on what they want written.QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 01:58 PM)
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Yes. She's wrong about a lot of things though.
Turner said Tuesday that he will continue seeking more signatures for his letter asking Pelosi to overturn the policy, and "if the speaker and the architect continue to implement their censorship program, we will drop legislation to compel the architect to return to granting inscriptions permitting the acknowledgement of God."
I don't know enough by this article to say whether the Architect should go back to the way things were. He changed policy to limit inscriptions to include "the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient" because "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well". Without an example of those statements I can't tell whether or not there was anything wrong with the old policy.
Sorry, this ain't censorship. It's a courtesy. The gubmit doesn't have to print the certificate on which God is missing.
I don't know enough by this article to say whether the Architect should go back to the way things were. He changed policy to limit inscriptions to include "the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient" because "people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well". Without an example of those statements I can't tell whether or not there was anything wrong with the old policy.
Sorry, this ain't censorship. It's a courtesy. The gubmit doesn't have to print the certificate on which God is missing.
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
BA, I think your answer is too simple. What we have here is a continuation of conflict between meanings of the "freedom or religion" clause and the "establishment" clause in the 1st Amendment.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 10 2007, 02:21 PM)
No of course not. Freedom OF religion... not NO religion EVER. Big difference.
BA, I think your answer is too simple. What we have here is a continuation of conflict between meanings of the "freedom or religion" clause and the "establishment" clause in the 1st Amendment.
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 10 2007, 03:40 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
BA, I think your answer is too simple. What we have here is a continuation of conflict between meanings of the "freedom or religion" clause and the "establishment" clause in the 1st Amendment.
No sorry BoF it is that simple. Let me state for the record I think ALL organized religion is a bad thing. That said there is no Separation of Church & State. A letter from Jefferson doesn't cut it. The FF were wonderfully clear about what they didn't want. They didn't want the US Government to establish a State Religion. People who look to wipe the word God from anything Government might have domain over are simply looking to wipe God from the public sphere in general. And, snicker, God Bless 'em. However they really can't use the Separation of Church & State to do it because like the Flying Spaghetti Monster it doesn't exist.QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 10 2007, 02:21 PM)
No of course not. Freedom OF religion... not NO religion EVER. Big difference.
BA, I think your answer is too simple. What we have here is a continuation of conflict between meanings of the "freedom or religion" clause and the "establishment" clause in the 1st Amendment.
You are free to practice any religion, or none, that you like. The US Government having a Nativity Scene on the lawn of White House is not creating a State Religion or endorsing one.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 10 2007, 02:55 PM)
No sorry BoF it is that simple. Let me state for the record I think ALL organized religion is a bad thing. That said there is no Separation of Church & State.
You will notice that I didn't mention Jefferson or "separation of church and state."
Yet the issue is complex. In their textbook Constitutional Law, 14th Edition, 2004 Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther write in Chapter 14 "The Religion Clauses: Free Exercise and Establishment":
QUOTE
The two clauses have given rise to separate bodies of case law. But this should not obscure the fact that the two clauses are interrelated. They protect overlapping values, but they often exert conflicting pressures. page 1503
The two clauses present us with a balancing act that isn't all that cut-and dried.
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 10 2007, 04:18 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 10 2007, 02:55 PM)
No sorry BoF it is that simple. Let me state for the record I think ALL organized religion is a bad thing. That said there is no Separation of Church & State.
You will notice that I didn't mention Jefferson or "separation of church and state."
Yet the issue is complex. In their textbook Constitutional Law, 14th Edition, 2004 Kathleen M. Sullivan and Gerald Gunther write in Chapter 14 "The Religion Clauses: Free Exercise and Establishment":
QUOTE
The two clauses have given rise to separate bodies of case law. But this should not obscure the fact that the two clauses are interrelated. They protect overlapping values, but they often exert conflicting pressures. page 1503
The two clauses present us with a balancing act that isn't all that cut-and dried.
OK. But you haven't explained why this is a balancing act. perhaps a new thread?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 10 2007, 01:31 PM)
Yes. But then again, she's an all-around boob.
If we could get past calling Nancy Pelosi names - "Boob" does have a sexist connotation, moderator!
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 10 2007, 03:31 PM)
OK. But you haven't explained why this is a balancing act. perhaps a new thread?
We might give her the benefit-of-the-doubt in making her decision.
That's the balancing act BA.
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
You are in support of the Architect censoring what an American Citizen requests to put on a certificate that is going to be given to an individual? I can understand if someone wanted every certificate to refer to God, even though that reference is not simply a Christian reference. This was something that a private citizen requested. These were the sentiments of one person to another. At no point does this gesture set any presidence towards any violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 10:14 PM)
I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
Is this recognition remotely mandated per U.S. Code? Tell us how the government censors free speech and suppresses religious freedom by giving the public freebie certificates with missing words.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
You are in support of the Architect censoring what an American Citizen requests to put on a certificate that is going to be given to an individual? I can understand if someone wanted every certificate to refer to God, even though that reference is not simply a Christian reference. This was something that a private citizen requested. These were the sentiments of one person to another. At no point does this gesture set any presidence towards any violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the inscription is to a Christian or a generic god. ArthurMusician's main point seems to hinge on who pays for it. Republicans have been vocal in asking why they should pay for someone else's health care. Can we not ask why tax dollars should go to pay for a religious inscription?
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 10 2007, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
You are in support of the Architect censoring what an American Citizen requests to put on a certificate that is going to be given to an individual? I can understand if someone wanted every certificate to refer to God, even though that reference is not simply a Christian reference. This was something that a private citizen requested. These were the sentiments of one person to another. At no point does this gesture set any presidence towards any violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the inscription is to a Christian or a generic god. ArthurMusician's main point seems to hinge on who pays for it. Republicans have been vocal in asking why they should pay for someone else's health care. Can we not ask why tax dollars should go to pay for a religious inscription?
Yes, that does seem to be an inconsistancy, given the fact that conservatives really go for things like "privatization"- why is a goverment institution even going into all this? Why are goverment resources being used for this at all, and how does a conservative reconcile this belief in smaller goverment while demanding "god" be emblazoned at the whim of every special interest by using goverment resources?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 10 2007, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 10 2007, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
You are in support of the Architect censoring what an American Citizen requests to put on a certificate that is going to be given to an individual? I can understand if someone wanted every certificate to refer to God, even though that reference is not simply a Christian reference. This was something that a private citizen requested. These were the sentiments of one person to another. At no point does this gesture set any presidence towards any violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the inscription is to a Christian or a generic god. ArthurMusician's main point seems to hinge on who pays for it. Republicans have been vocal in asking why they should pay for someone else's health care. Can we not ask why tax dollars should go to pay for a religious inscription?
Yes, that does seem to be an inconsistancy, given the fact that conservatives really go for things like "privatization"- why is a goverment institution even going into all this? Why are goverment resources being used for this at all, and how does a conservative reconcile this belief in smaller goverment while demanding "god" be emblazoned at the whim of every special interest by using goverment resources?
Great job of fact-checking people guys.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Who the hell needs any facts when it comes to bashing Republicans. The fact of the matter is that anyone can order a US Flag that has flown over the Capitol through their representatives in Congress. And, they have to pay for it. From one of my Senators' websites......
QUOTE
My office can arrange to have an American flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to commemorate a special occasion, event or holiday.
In addition to the flag, you will receive a certificate, suitable for framing, stating that the flag was flown over the Capitol. The certificate will include the name of the person or organization for whom the flag was flown, the occasion for which it was flown and the date it was flown.
In addition to the flag, you will receive a certificate, suitable for framing, stating that the flag was flown over the Capitol. The certificate will include the name of the person or organization for whom the flag was flown, the occasion for which it was flown and the date it was flown.
If you go to that website and follow the link to purchasing a flag you will find that it costs anywhere from $59 to $520 (plus another 100+ bucks for certification and shipping) depending on what you want. I actually purchased one for my father's birthday several years ago and believe it or not (and most here won't), it was a great gift. At least my dad thought it was.
But nevermind actually checking the facts first before you start bashing Republicans. After all, we're too ignorant to breed. Just keep making crap up and have at it.
To answer the questions.....
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
No, not at all. If you want to purchase a flag that has a certificate that says "There is no God", you should be able to do that. Even though the money you use to make that purchase says "In God we trust".
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
No, I think There should be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this gross violation of the First Amendment and upon being found guilty of anything at all, the Architect should be hanged at dawn.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Yes, and she should be flogged and placed in stocks at the public square, but not at dawn. Maybe dusk, after dinner has settled.
Aquilla
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 11 2007, 04:34 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 10 2007, 08:04 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 10 2007, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 10 2007, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 10 2007, 04:26 PM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
I use one touchstone on this. If the certificate is paid for by tax dollars, then stay away from religious motifs.
If the Eagle Scout in question or his family paid for it, then follow the customer's directions. Think I'd feel best about this if the whole thing went into the private sector. Just stop offering inscriptions, deliver the flag, and let private individuals decide what inscriptions they want from the local jeweler, or have Kinkos print up the certificate.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
This is down there with complaining about newspaper ads or what some talk show host says. It's a waste of time. Censure the congresscritters for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime complaining about censorship.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
I'll go with no if taxpayers foot the bill for the inscriptions/certificates.
You are in support of the Architect censoring what an American Citizen requests to put on a certificate that is going to be given to an individual? I can understand if someone wanted every certificate to refer to God, even though that reference is not simply a Christian reference. This was something that a private citizen requested. These were the sentiments of one person to another. At no point does this gesture set any presidence towards any violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I am in the opinion that the government telling this individual that they can't have this particular inscription violates that individual's First Amendment Rights on two levels. First for censoring free speech and second on religion.
I don't see what difference it makes whether the inscription is to a Christian or a generic god. ArthurMusician's main point seems to hinge on who pays for it. Republicans have been vocal in asking why they should pay for someone else's health care. Can we not ask why tax dollars should go to pay for a religious inscription?
Yes, that does seem to be an inconsistancy, given the fact that conservatives really go for things like "privatization"- why is a goverment institution even going into all this? Why are goverment resources being used for this at all, and how does a conservative reconcile this belief in smaller goverment while demanding "god" be emblazoned at the whim of every special interest by using goverment resources?
Great job of fact-checking people guys.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Who the hell needs any facts when it comes to bashing Republicans. The fact of the matter is that anyone can order a US Flag that has flown over the Capitol through their representatives in Congress. And, they have to pay for it. From one of my Senators' websites......
QUOTE
My office can arrange to have an American flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to commemorate a special occasion, event or holiday.
In addition to the flag, you will receive a certificate, suitable for framing, stating that the flag was flown over the Capitol. The certificate will include the name of the person or organization for whom the flag was flown, the occasion for which it was flown and the date it was flown.
In addition to the flag, you will receive a certificate, suitable for framing, stating that the flag was flown over the Capitol. The certificate will include the name of the person or organization for whom the flag was flown, the occasion for which it was flown and the date it was flown.
If you go to that website and follow the link to purchasing a flag you will find that it costs anywhere from $59 to $520 (plus another 100+ bucks for certification and shipping) depending on what you want. I actually purchased one for my father's birthday several years ago and believe it or not (and most here won't), it was a great gift. At least my dad thought it was.
But nevermind actually checking the facts first before you start bashing Republicans. After all, we're too ignorant to breed. Just keep making crap up and have at it.
To answer the questions.....
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
No, not at all. If you want to purchase a flag that has a certificate that says "There is no God", you should be able to do that. Even though the money you use to make that purchase says "In God we trust".
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
No, I think There should be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this gross violation of the First Amendment and upon being found guilty of anything at all, the Architect should be hanged at dawn.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Yes, and she should be flogged and placed in stocks at the public square, but not at dawn. Maybe dusk, after dinner has settled.
Aquilla
Well, I guess that puts that to rest. Funny how facts always get in the way for those that don't do research. I checked my senator's website and found this:
Click here!
How will the libs twist this into why Republicans are idiots and wrong on the issue now? It will be fun to see....
Well, thanks for the info. Still not enough info.
Who keeps this money? The senators, Capitol Hill? Does it go towards paying off the budget? Are flag prices slashed, is the gubmit trying to make a profit? They're cheaper than I'd expect. If this is being run like a business then customers, not constituents, should be accommodated like a business.
Who keeps this money? The senators, Capitol Hill? Does it go towards paying off the budget? Are flag prices slashed, is the gubmit trying to make a profit? They're cheaper than I'd expect. If this is being run like a business then customers, not constituents, should be accommodated like a business.
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 11 2007, 04:34 AM)
But nevermind actually checking the facts first before you start bashing Republicans. After all, we're too ignorant to breed. Just keep making crap up and have at it.
QUOTE
My office can arrange to have an American flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to commemorate a special occasion, event or holiday.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.c...ns.FlagPurchase
QUOTE
In addition to the flag, you will receive a certificate, suitable for framing, stating that the flag was flown over the Capitol. The certificate will include the name of the person or organization for whom the flag was flown, the occasion for which it was flown and the date it was flown.
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.c...ns.FlagPurchase
There is no mention of any deity in the link you provided Aquilla. Perhaps the big guy is asleep or AWOL, but there are those who still try to sneak him in the backdoor of government. Why is this necessary? Why can’t religion be a private matter?
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 11 2007, 04:34 AM)
Yes, and she should be flogged and placed in stocks at the public square, but not at dawn. Maybe dusk, after dinner has settled.
Ah, the urge among Republicans to bash Nancy Pelosi is as great as the urge to bash Republicans among Democrats.
BTW: You forgot the thumbscrews. 
Here’s another example of Pelosi bashing.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 10 2007, 01:31 PM)
Yes. But then again, she's an all-around boob.
“All-around boob?” Why that could be interpreted to mean she is abreast of things.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 11 2007, 09:04 AM)
Well, thanks for the info. Still not enough info.
Who keeps this money? The senators, Capitol Hill? Does it go towards paying off the budget? Are flag prices slashed, is the gubmit trying to make a profit? They're cheaper than I'd expect. If this is being run like a business then customers, not constituents, should be accommodated like a business.
Who keeps this money? The senators, Capitol Hill? Does it go towards paying off the budget? Are flag prices slashed, is the gubmit trying to make a profit? They're cheaper than I'd expect. If this is being run like a business then customers, not constituents, should be accommodated like a business.
Who keeps the money? Paying off the budget? Prices slashed? Are you serious? What difference does it make? The issue is who is paying for the flags, not where the money is being put. Why is that now the issue? The money goes to pay for the flags. I heard over 100,000 flags are flown over the capital each year, with such a bulk, the prices are in line with the cost of a flag. Why would these funds need to go towards anything more than the cost of the flag? What do you want out of this? Seriously, you are fishing for something that isn't there! Get away from the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy' theory and allow citizens to puchase a flag that was flown over our Capitol. By the way, Pelosi has changed her position and God will be allowed on the certificates. When I find the link, I will post it. Please continue to argue against this issue now that your Liberal Leader has changed with the wind.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Who keeps the money? Paying off the budget? Prices slashed? Are you serious? What difference does it make?
You see Scubatim, when the gubmit subsidizes a service like, say, education, it can demand certain accommodations. See NCLB.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
The issue is who is paying for the flags, not where the money is being put.
Afraid not. It's never that cut and dry when dealing with the government.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Why is that now the issue? The money goes to pay for the flags.
But not the certificate? It's clear from Feinstein's website that the money includes the certificate. It's not so clear from Grassley's website.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
I heard over 100,000 flags are flown over the capital each year, with such a bulk, the prices are in line with the cost of a flag.
You know they are or you assume they are?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Why would these funds need to go towards anything more than the cost of the flag?
Who has said it has to?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
What do you want out of this?
I want to know whether the government is acting like the gubmit, a non-profit, or for-profit organization to come to the right conclusion about your debate questions.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 11 2007, 09:30 AM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Who keeps the money? Paying off the budget? Prices slashed? Are you serious? What difference does it make?
You see Scubatim, when the gubmit subsidizes a service like, say, education, it can demand certain accommodations. See NCLB.
Seriously, we are talking about flags and certificates. The government isn't trying to get you to vow your allegience to God.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
The issue is who is paying for the flags, not where the money is being put.
Afraid not. It's never that cut and dry when dealing with the government.
I distrust the government as much as the next guy, but to put conspiracy theory in the flying of an American Flag for constituents is a little far reaching, don't you think?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Why is that now the issue? The money goes to pay for the flags.
But not the certificate? It's clear from Feinstein's website that the money includes the certificate. It's not so clear from Grassley's website.
So Grassley needs a better webmaster, I will pass your sentiments on to his office.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
I heard over 100,000 flags are flown over the capital each year, with such a bulk, the prices are in line with the cost of a flag.
You know they are or you assume they are?
As you will see from the quote you quoted, I said that I heard that over 100,000 flags are flown every year. What they do is raise a flag for a minute or so, then lower it, tag it, and raise another flag. They do this all day to fill all the requests. Logically speaking, hundreds of thousdands of flags could be flown in a year.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
Why would these funds need to go towards anything more than the cost of the flag?
Who has said it has to?
Your post implied that it needed to go towards something. I guess I don't have the facts on this, but I am sure Congress is not taking the money and throwing parties, but I could be wrong.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
What do you want out of this?
I want to know whether the government is acting like the gubmit, a non-profit, or for-profit organization to come to the right conclusion about your debate questions.
Maybe I am uneducated, but what is a gubmit? This is getting much more difficult than it should be. The root of this issue is should the government censor what is on the certificate that you, a constituant, request as your inscription?
By the way, there is no written policy forbidding the word God on certificates: http://www.aoc.gov/
" target="_blank">
http://www.aoc.gov/
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
No. If the certificate said something like, "We the people of the United States would like to recognize so and so for their service to God and Country." Maybe... maybe. But this is a personal inscription requested by a private citizen and in no way reflects an endorsement by the government of religion.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
No. It is wrong, however, that this is being turned into a Dems vs. Repubs thing - especially since the written guidelines for what can go onto the certificates were created in 2003 under a Republican majority. And the rule regarding religious and political statements existed in an unwritten form prior to that dating back to the 1970's. Though, this doesn't mean that they aren't written now - that is not made clear on the AOC website.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
No. He was doing his job. Should his job be censoring the speech of private citizens? No. But, currently those are the rules and he was just following the rules.
Oh, and I'm venturing a guess that gubmit = government.
No. If the certificate said something like, "We the people of the United States would like to recognize so and so for their service to God and Country." Maybe... maybe. But this is a personal inscription requested by a private citizen and in no way reflects an endorsement by the government of religion.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
No. It is wrong, however, that this is being turned into a Dems vs. Repubs thing - especially since the written guidelines for what can go onto the certificates were created in 2003 under a Republican majority. And the rule regarding religious and political statements existed in an unwritten form prior to that dating back to the 1970's. Though, this doesn't mean that they aren't written now - that is not made clear on the AOC website.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
No. He was doing his job. Should his job be censoring the speech of private citizens? No. But, currently those are the rules and he was just following the rules.
Oh, and I'm venturing a guess that gubmit = government.
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
It's a political football, isn't it? "Divide and Rule" is the quintessential policy of the ruling class in this country and its Republican servants in Congress. So they will never miss an opportunity to drive a wedge between the people whenever they can. Most of these "values" debates are manefestations of that.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Well, I've been an steadfast atheist since I was 15. Never once, since it first dawned on me that God was in fact imaginary, have I entertained the remotest whiff of a belief in this absurdly anthropomorphic entity; or indeed in ghosts, demons or a spirit world in general. Suppose then that my sons, who are also rock-ribbed atheists, sent a flag to the Capitol and requested that it be flown, and returned with a certificate commending me for my steadfast atheism. Or what if some Satanist wanted a certificate commemorating their loved one's love of Satan?
Would the Republicans in Congress approve of this? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh? If atheism or love of Satan is to be denied its certificate while Christian belief is to be accorded its, then the state has taken a religious position, has it not? This, I believe, is Pelosi's point as well as that of the Capitol architect.
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
2. Are the Congressmen wrong for wanting to change the policy allowing the Architect of the Capitol to censure what is enscribed on the certificates requested by U.S. Citizens?
It's a political football, isn't it? "Divide and Rule" is the quintessential policy of the ruling class in this country and its Republican servants in Congress. So they will never miss an opportunity to drive a wedge between the people whenever they can. Most of these "values" debates are manefestations of that.
3. Is Speaker Pelosi wrong for defending the Architect of the Captiol in his decision?
Well, I've been an steadfast atheist since I was 15. Never once, since it first dawned on me that God was in fact imaginary, have I entertained the remotest whiff of a belief in this absurdly anthropomorphic entity; or indeed in ghosts, demons or a spirit world in general. Suppose then that my sons, who are also rock-ribbed atheists, sent a flag to the Capitol and requested that it be flown, and returned with a certificate commending me for my steadfast atheism. Or what if some Satanist wanted a certificate commemorating their loved one's love of Satan?
Would the Republicans in Congress approve of this? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh? If atheism or love of Satan is to be denied its certificate while Christian belief is to be accorded its, then the state has taken a religious position, has it not? This, I believe, is Pelosi's point as well as that of the Capitol architect.
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
But this wasn't the government's own speech - unless this man referred to in the inscription is the government's grandfather. It clearly says, "my grandfather." It is clearly the speech of a private citizen.
Let me add:
The members of Congress all received a memo in January that, among other things, reminded them that religious/political statements could not be included in the personal messages on the certificates. This has been the case for some time and these guidelines were reviewed in 2003.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 10:21 AM)
1.Does the requested enscription on the certificate violate the seperation of church and state?
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
To the degree that the certificate is the government's own speech, yes. The government is unable to commend anyone for his "love of God," or "love of Krishna," or "piety toward all the gods," or "steadfast atheism," or to condemn anyone for failure in the same, without overstepping its bounds.
But this wasn't the government's own speech - unless this man is the government's grandfather. It clearly says, "my grandfather." It is clearly the speech of a private citizen.
Let me add:
The members of Congress all received a memo in January that, among other things, reminded them that religious/political statements could not be included in the personal messages on the certificates. This has been the case for some time and these guidelines were reviewed in 2003.
Clearly it is speech of which the government approves, and which it sponsors. The government prints an official-looking certificate at its own expense. I believe it is labelled as originating in the Capitol. Also I believe it is understood that the flag is flown above the Capitol to commemorate the precise honor specified on the certificate. So although the exact words are specified by someone else, these words also become the government's speech when it flies the flag to commemorate the same, and when it prints and issues its certificate of commendation.
If the government's commemoration is not desired, the individual in question is perfectly at liberty to have a certificate printed up at his own expense. No one is disputing that right.
Also you have failed to address my key point, which was whether similar certificates commending atheism, or love of Satan, should be issued. Or howabout a certificate commending John for his lifelong and faithful love of his partner, Bill? Would the Republicans in Congress champion that?
QUOTE
The root of this issue is should the government censor what is on the certificate that you, a constituant, request as your inscription?
Upon further thought, I don't see that the term "censor" is appropriate in this situation. For one, this is not a public document but a private cert. For two, this is a cert and not an official government policy, although the editing guidelines in the Architect's office may be considered as such.
I'm going to consider this a bad editing policy for a product the government sells, and I'll assume the charges do not include profit, a zero-sum gain.
So the Architect's office should pull up the PDF, load the cert paper and print out a new cert for the Eagle Scout as per the requested wording.
If the sale of the product does generate profit, then I would expect Republicans to raise a big stink about socialism. Obviously, the government owns the means to produce certifications (i.e., personal computer and printer). I do too, but I lack the Capitol Dome over which to add value to my flag stock. I don't think flags flown over my home address would sell very well, even though it is in the USA.
As for Republican bashing, I've given that up. It is no longer necessary. I am still bothered that it seems congresscritters of all stripes have too much time on their hands. I'm suspecting the reason for this is a veto signing hand that found a pen last year.
Oh yeah, the word "gumint" is in the same dictionary as "moonbat."
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 10:35 AM)
Clearly it is speech of which the government approves, and which it sponsors. The government prints an official-looking certificate at its own expense.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the individual pays for the certificate as part of the purchase of the request... they also pay for the flying of the flag. And this is a private citizen's expression of the role of government in their life. It is a service provided by the government paid for by private citizens. If a private citizen wishes to see their government in a religious light, it is their right to do so.
It is speech that the government can't censor and in no way sponsors. It is not a government commemoration. It is a private citizen's commemoration. The private citizen, in essence, rents time on the flag pole.
QUOTE
If the government's commemoration is not desired, the individual in question is perfectly at liberty to have a certificate printed up at his own expense. No one is disputing that right.
So... just so long as the government isn't doing the printing then it's fine? Even though the private citizen has it printed by the government at his own expense?
QUOTE
Also you have failed to address my key point, which was whether similar certificates commending atheism, or love of Satan, should be issued. Or howabout a certificate commending John for his lifelong and faithful love of his partner, Bill? Would the Republicans in Congress champion that?
I would say that if religious statements are acceptable, all religious statements should be acceptable. I think that the government should be able to reject certain statements for obscenity or taste. I think it would be the government's right to reject an inscription that said, for example, "To celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews in WWII."
QUOTE
I would say that if religious statements are acceptable, all religious statements should be acceptable. I think that the government should be able to reject certain statements for obscenity or taste. I think it would be the government's right to reject an inscription that said, for example, "To celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews in WWII."
That's a very good example, entspeak. Here's another one that shouldn't make the cut:
To celebrate Bong Hits for Jesus!
But I personally would allow God and other deity names, and if I wanted Bong Hits for Jesus!, I'd print out my own dang cert. I could even scan the old cert, cut out what the gumint put in there, and stick in my Bong Hits for Jesus! oh so sharp commentary, print the sucker out and voilà!
Free enterprise. Entrepreneurship. Shoot, think I just got an idea for a business
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM)
This is getting much more difficult than it should be.
Welcome to First Amendment discussions.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM)
The root of this issue is should the government censor what is on the certificate that you, a constituent, request as your inscription?
Calling it censorship over and over again doesn't make you right. And honestly, it sounds more like you're more of a customer than a constituent.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM)
By the way, there is no written policy forbidding the word God on certificates.
Apparently there's some sort of policy or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Do you want to dispute this:
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 11:10 AM)
And the rule regarding religious and political statements existed in an unwritten form prior to that dating back to the 1970's.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 12:10 PM)
I would say that if religious statements are acceptable, all religious statements should be acceptable. I think that the government should be able to reject certain statements for obscenity or taste. I think it would be the government's right to reject an inscription that said, for example, "To celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews in WWII."
There's no right to obscene speech so that's a moot point. However, I'm not sure what your argument is. You say the policy has been place for a while but the gubmit is wrong in keeping out religious statements? Well, if that's the case, what's wrong with "killing of 6 million Jews in WWII?" You've argued you can't attribute religious statements to the government. So why do you think the government should be able to strike out this political statement? After all, it can't be attributed to the government. It's just a statement of bad taste on the part of the constituent.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 11 2007, 12:02 PM)
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM)
This is getting much more difficult than it should be.
Welcome to First Amendment discussions.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 11:00 AM)
The root of this issue is should the government censor what is on the certificate that you, a constituent, request as your inscription?
Calling it censorship over and over again doesn't make you right. And honestly, it sounds more like you're a customer than a constituent.
In my opinion, First Amendment discussions don't dwel on where the money is going. I am one that thinks the Constitution is exactly the same as it was over 200 years ago and not a living document. These arguments that are offshoots are irrelevent in this disscussion. Basically put, if a citizen of the United States requests and pays to fly a flag over the United States Capital so that he can present it as a gift to another citizen honoring that citizen, he should be able to do so without the words he chooses to be censored.
To your second point, what is it called when a Presidentialy appointed person changes what you want to express because it has a religious basis? What is that called if not censorship?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 01:14 PM)
In my opinion, First Amendment discussions don't dwel on where the money is going. I am one that thinks the Constitution is exactly the same as it was over 200 years ago and not a living document.
You understand your free speech rights aren't in jeopardy when dealing with a private entity because the Constitution only applies to the government? In this case the government is acting as a private entity by selling flags—and maybe certificates—and blurring the line between public and private services. It's not as clear cut as you believe it is.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 01:14 PM)
These arguments that are offshoots are irrelevant in this discussion.
Click the report button on this post.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 01:14 PM)
To your second point, what is it called when a presidentialy appointed person changes what you want to express because it has a religious basis? What is that called if not censorship?
If I'm paying for it, it's called "take your business elsewhere".
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 10:35 AM)
Clearly it is speech of which the government approves, and which it sponsors. The government prints an official-looking certificate at its own expense.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the individual pays for the certificate as part of the purchase of the request... they also pay for the flying of the flag. And this is a private citizen's expression of the role of government in their life. It is a service provided by the government paid for by private citizens. If a private citizen wishes to see their government in a religious light, it is their right to do so.
If a citizen wants to see his government in a religious light, he is making a category mistake, but I agree that this is a mistake he is perfectly free to make. The question is, whether the government should join him in this. If a citizen believes that George Washington was God Incarnate, who should dispute it? But he should not be able to order an official U.S. government certificate to that effect, and one with government emblems on it.
As to who pays, I was not under that impression. However, even if that is the case, clearly the speech in question is sponsored by the government. That's why it's on a government certificate, which I think we can assume bears some sort of official indication, such as a "U.S. Capitol" label.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
It is speech that the government can't censor and in no way sponsors. It is not a government commemoration. It is a private citizen's commemoration. The private citizen, in essence, rents time on the flag pole.
Well, this is assuming the result of the debate, isn't it? If it isn't a government commemoration, why does it bear a "U.S. Capitol" indication? The Capitol isn't a part of the U.S. Government? You cannot rent government property for the purpose of making a religious demonstration, can you? And what flying a flag in God's honor -- as openly expressed on the certificate -- but that?
Should I be able to rent the Capitol lawn to sacrifice an ox to All-Seeing Zeus, or even just to have a Hellenistic religious service?
If the government's imprimature and emblems are not desired, why bother to apply to the government at all? And if they are, surely we must recognize that the government cannot devote its imprimature or emblems to a relious cause.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
If the government's commemoration is not desired, the individual in question is perfectly at liberty to have a certificate printed up at his own expense. No one is disputing that right.
So... just so long as the government isn't doing the printing then it's fine? Even though the private citizen has it printed by the government at his own expense?
Like I said, the government can't hire itself out for religious purposes. The government is not a business. The government, in any case, remains responsible for what it prints, even if the words were proposed by a private citizen.
There is no liberty issue at all, since the individual in question is free to fly his own flag and print his own certificate. OR have his flag flown at the Capitol, have the government print a vanilla certificate, and then print his own certificate lauding his supposed creator to the heavenly skies.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
Also you have failed to address my key point, which was whether similar certificates commending atheism, or love of Satan, should be issued. Or howabout a certificate commending John for his lifelong and faithful love of his partner, Bill? Would the Republicans in Congress champion that?
I would say that if religious statements are acceptable, all religious statements should be acceptable. I think that the government should be able to reject certain statements for obscenity or taste. I think it would be the government's right to reject an inscription that said, for example, "To celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews in WWII."
Well, personally I would not want to see the government printing official-looking certificates in honor of Baal the Destroyer, and I very much doubt that our Republican friends in Congress would be up in arms if the printing of such a certificate had been denied. The government should be blind to religious purposes, and should not be implementing them on a for-hire basis.
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 01:02 PM)
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE(Vladimir @ Oct 11 2007, 10:35 AM)
Clearly it is speech of which the government approves, and which it sponsors. The government prints an official-looking certificate at its own expense.
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that the individual pays for the certificate as part of the purchase of the request... they also pay for the flying of the flag. And this is a private citizen's expression of the role of government in their life. It is a service provided by the government paid for by private citizens. If a private citizen wishes to see their government in a religious light, it is their right to do so.
QUOTE
If a citizen wants to see his government in a religious light, he is making a category mistake, but I agree that this is a mistake he is perfectly free to make. The question is, whether the government should join him in this. If a citizen believes that George Washington was God Incarnate, who should dispute it? But he should not be able to order an official U.S. government certificate to that effect, and one with government emblems on it.
I guess my respose to this is look at the one dollar bill. Look at the halls of the Captial. Religious references are abundant. I could almost see abolishing those references, but to abolish references made by private citizen to another is overstepping. Especially since Congress begins each morning with a prayer.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
It is speech that the government can't censor and in no way sponsors. It is not a government commemoration. It is a private citizen's commemoration. The private citizen, in essence, rents time on the flag pole.
QUOTE
Well, this is assuming the result of the debate, isn't it? If it isn't a government commemoration, why does it bear a "U.S. Capitol" indication? The Capitol isn't a part of the U.S. Government? You cannot rent government property for the purpose of making a religious demonstration, can you? And what flying a flag in God's honor -- as openly expressed on the certificate -- but that?
Again, facts are being twisted. This individual didn't have the flag flown in God's honor. It was in his grandfather's honor. His grandfather holds his religion as the basis for himself. The certificate didn't declare a religion at all, it just pointed out the grandfather's love of God.
QUOTE
If the government's imprimature and emblems are not desired, why bother to apply to the government at all? And if they are, surely we must recognize that the government cannot devote is imprimature or emblems to a relious cause.
Again, this wasn't devoted to a religious cause, it was devoted to a man for his love of God, family and country.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
If the government's commemoration is not desired, the individual in question is perfectly at liberty to have a certificate printed up at his own expense. No one is disputing that right.
So... just so long as the government isn't doing the printing then it's fine? Even though the private citizen has it printed by the government at his own expense?
QUOTE
Like I said, the government can't hire itself out for religious purposes. The government is not a business. The government, in any case, remains responsible for what it prints, even if the words were proposed by a private citizen.
Again trying to make this about the government endorsing a religion. No specific religion was specified, and it wasn't for the purpose of religion.
QUOTE(entspeak @ Oct 11 2007, 04:10 PM)
QUOTE
Also you have failed to address my key point, which was whether similar certificates commending atheism, or love of Satan, should be issued. Or howabout a certificate commending John for his lifelong and faithful love of his partner, Bill? Would the Republicans in Congress champion that?
I would say that if religious statements are acceptable, all religious statements should be acceptable. I think that the government should be able to reject certain statements for obscenity or taste. I think it would be the government's right to reject an inscription that said, for example, "To celebrate the killing of 6 million Jews in WWII."
QUOTE
Well, personally I would not want to see the government printing official-looking certificates in honor of Baal the Destroyer, and I very much doubt that our Republican friends in Congress would be up in arms if the printing of such a certificate had been denied. The government should be blind to religious purposes, and should not be implementing them on a for-hire basis.
I don't view this service as anything different than any other service afforded any citizen of the United States. I don't see this as being a for-hire basis. It is a service. It is OUR Captial, not the governments. If a citizen wants to honor his grandfather for the traits that the citizen find to be honorable, than he should be able to. Instead of the government using existing tax dollars to pay for this service, you pay the tax for the service individually. Again, this is a service provided by the government for the people. Not a for-hire job.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 06:24 PM)
I guess my respose to this is look at the one dollar bill. Look at the halls of the Captial. Religious references are abundant. I could almost see abolishing those references, but to abolish references made by private citizen to another is overstepping. Especially since Congress begins each morning with a prayer.
That the words in question are on the currency and that Congress opens with a prayer is deplorable. But these blantantly official endorsements of religion should not be a pretext for further breech of the boundary that should separate church and state.
Since Congress begins each morning with a prayer, let us pass a resolution that Jesus, the supposed Crist, is God's only-begotton Son and Man's personal Savior, eh?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 06:24 PM)
Again, facts are being twisted. This individual didn't have the flag flown in God's honor. It was in his grandfather's honor. His grandfather holds his religion as the basis for himself. The certificate didn't declare a religion at all, it just pointed out the grandfather's love of God.
If the government issues a certificat praising someone for honoring the supposed God, this is not the government saying that to honor this supposed being is a good thing?
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 06:24 PM)
QUOTE
If the government's imprimature and emblems are not desired, why bother to apply to the government at all? And if they are, surely we must recognize that the government cannot devote is imprimature or emblems to a relious cause.
Again, this wasn't devoted to a religious cause, it was devoted to a man for his love of God, family and country.
Again trying to make this about the government endorsing a religion. No specific religion was specified, and it wasn't for the purpose of religion.
The God in question is not specific to someone's religion? He's not specific to my religion, I can tell you that. The whole point of this individual's application was to secure the government's imprimature of, and emblems upon, a document in praise of certain things. Among those things is the worship of the supposed God. Ergo, this is a petition that the government lend its imprimature and emblems to a religious purpose.
The last time I checked, that God exists, and that worhip of this entity is a good thing, were religious propositions. If they have become some other sort of proposition, please let me know.
QUOTE
I don't view this service as anything different than any other service afforded any citizen of the United States. I don't see this as being a for-hire basis. It is a service. It is OUR Captial, not the governments. If a citizen wants to honor his grandfather for the traits that the citizen find to be honorable, than he should be able to. Instead of the government using existing tax dollars to pay for this service, you pay the tax for the service individually. Again, this is a service provided by the government for the people. Not a for-hire job.
It is more than a government service to issue a official statement upon which appear the government's seal and arms, or any other of its notable emblems. To issue any such statement is explicitly to endorse its contents.
It is fine for Church groups to use the public parks for their picnics, since the parks are devoted to this sort of use by anyone; it is not fine for a Church group to be offered the use of the Capitol lawn for such a picnic, since the Capitol is a govenment emblem and a church picnic on its lawn gives a sense that the religion in question is approved of by the government. Or would you perhaps like to see an Atheist festival on this lawn?
But to the extent that the issuance of these certificates is a government service, it is one that should not stray into the endorsement of religion -- or into condemnation of the same.
QUOTE(scubatim)
Basically put, if a citizen of the United States requests and pays to fly a flag over the United States Capital so that he can present it as a gift to another citizen honoring that citizen, he should be able to do so without the words he chooses to be censored.
The crux of your argument here and short sightedness need to be addressed.
So I want to get a flag for my devil worshiping, commie cousin. Should I be able to request “Lucifer, assist me in taking down this capitalist country by the shamed honor of this flag that was flown on......blah, blah, blah…”
I should be able to, right? Free speech and all…
Last I looked, the US government isn’t in the custom printing business. What's next, "Hey, I don't like the color of my passport cover".
QUOTE
The crux of your argument here and short sightedness need to be addressed.
So I want to get a flag for my devil worshiping, commie cousin. Should I be able to request “Lucifer, assist me in taking down this capitalist country by the shamed honor of this flag that was flown on......blah, blah, blah…”
I should be able to, right? Free speech and all…
Last I looked, the US government isn’t in the custom printing business. What's next, "Hey, I don't like the color of my passport cover".
So I want to get a flag for my devil worshiping, commie cousin. Should I be able to request “Lucifer, assist me in taking down this capitalist country by the shamed honor of this flag that was flown on......blah, blah, blah…”
I should be able to, right? Free speech and all…
Last I looked, the US government isn’t in the custom printing business. What's next, "Hey, I don't like the color of my passport cover".
Actually, that request would be viewed by many as treasonous, and last I looked, that would be against the law. Threatening to take down the government is illegal, so your overzealous rant doesn't apply to this discussion. If your grandfather was a Satan Worshiper and you wanted to have an inscription on a certificate that read For my grandfather, Grand Pumba, for his love for Satan, Family and Country, then it is ok. If you wanted to honor your athiest cousin and have the inscription For my cousin Edy, for his lack of faith in something grander than himself, his love for his country and family, that would be ok too. When you threaten the nation as you did in your point, that isn't ok. The basis of the First Amendment regarding religion isn't freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion. By not allowing this citizen to express his grandfather's love of God, is restricting him from expressing his religion.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 02:03 PM)
QUOTE
The crux of your argument here and short sightedness need to be addressed.
So I want to get a flag for my devil worshiping, commie cousin. Should I be able to request “Lucifer, assist me in taking down this capitalist country by the shamed honor of this flag that was flown on......blah, blah, blah…”
I should be able to, right? Free speech and all…
Last I looked, the US government isn’t in the custom printing business. What's next, "Hey, I don't like the color of my passport cover".
So I want to get a flag for my devil worshiping, commie cousin. Should I be able to request “Lucifer, assist me in taking down this capitalist country by the shamed honor of this flag that was flown on......blah, blah, blah…”
I should be able to, right? Free speech and all…
Last I looked, the US government isn’t in the custom printing business. What's next, "Hey, I don't like the color of my passport cover".
Actually, that request would be viewed by many as treasonous, and last I looked, that would be against the law. Threatening to take down the government is illegal, so your overzealous rant doesn't apply to this discussion.
I don't believe it would be against the law. First, Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as
QUOTE
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There is no levying of war or giving aid or comfort in the above proposed inscription.However, there is the concept of Sedition. The Smith Act passed in the 1940s created primarily as a reaction to the "Communist scare" has not been enforced since 1961.
QUOTE
If you wanted to honor your athiest cousin and have the inscription For my cousin Edy, for his lack of faith in something grander than himself, his love for his country and family, that would be ok too.
The more likely inscription for an atheist cousin would be: "For my cousin Edy, for his adherence to the rational and rejection of fairy tales, his love for his country and family".
QUOTE
The basis of the First Amendment regarding religion isn't freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.
I have no idea what this quip means. I assume it's just punditry.
QUOTE
By not allowing this citizen to express his grandfather's love of God, is restricting him from expressing his religion.
This whole issue would be solved so simply if the government weren't in the business of printing flag inscriptions. Just privatize it. There, problem solved.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 05:03 PM)
Actually, that request would be viewed by many as treasonous, and last I looked, that would be against the law.
Only if you think Lucifer can take down the government. Kinda like God punishing New Orleans gays with Katrina.
Can Lucifer bring down the capital, Scubatim? If not, why are you suppressing the religious freedoms of Satanists?
QUOTE(logophage @ Oct 11 2007, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE
Actually, that request would be viewed by many as treasonous, and last I looked, that would be against the law. Threatening to take down the government is illegal, so your overzealous rant doesn't apply to this discussion.
QUOTE
I don't believe it would be against the law. First, Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as
QUOTE
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There is no levying of war or giving aid or comfort in the above proposed inscription.Not that semantics has anything to do with this discussion, but I will entertain your point. Taking down the government I would think would take an act of war. By the definition you provided seems to cover this.
QUOTE
However, there is the concept of Sedition. The Smith Act passed in the 1940s created primarily as a reaction to the "Communist scare" has not been enforced since 1961.
QUOTE
If you wanted to honor your athiest cousin and have the inscription For my cousin Edy, for his lack of faith in something grander than himself, his love for his country and family, that would be ok too.
The more likely inscription for an atheist cousin would be: "For my cousin Edy, for his adherence to the rational and rejection of fairy tales, his love for his country and family".
How ever you want to word it, fine.
QUOTE
QUOTE
The basis of the First Amendment regarding religion isn't freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.
I have no idea what this quip means. I assume it's just punditry.
The point is that the government can't tell me if my religious beliefs are valid or not. Freedom from religion implies that I am free of religion. Freedom of religion implies that I can have any religion I choose without governmental opression.
QUOTE
By not allowing this citizen to express his grandfather's love of God, is restricting him from expressing his religion.
This whole issue would be solved so simply if the government weren't in the business of printing flag inscriptions. Just privatize it. There, problem solved.
A lot of things would be solved if the government weren't in the business of many things, however I think I have the right to fly a flag over my Capital and have it certified that it did indeed fly over the Capital.
Just and FYI: Click here!
Now I guess the debate should be brought up with your congressmen if you disagree.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 04:52 PM)
QUOTE
QUOTE
The basis of the First Amendment regarding religion isn't freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.
I have no idea what this quip means. I assume it's just punditry.
The point is that the government can't tell me if my religious beliefs are valid or not. Freedom from religion implies that I am free of religion. Freedom of religion implies that I can have any religion I choose without governmental opression.
Scubatim, I've been hearing this line about freedom of and freedom from religion from the right for a while now. In 1965 I took a graduate course in political science scope and method. One of our texts was a book called The Conduct of Inquiry by a man named Abraham Kaplan.
In one illustration Kaplan had two men arguing over a nail. The first man said, "
QUOTE(Kaplan @ page 35)
Some fool has put the head of this nail on the wrong end. [the second responded] You idiot it's for the opposite wall!
Kaplan went on to call this a "dialogue of madmen."
Freedom of and from religion arguments resemble the back and forth in Kaplan's nail illustration.
Abraham Kaplan
Note: I still have my copy of Kaplin's book. I consulted it to get the quotation exact.
QUOTE(scubatim @ Oct 11 2007, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Oct 11 2007, 04:27 PM)
I don't believe it would be against the law. First, Treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 as
QUOTE
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There is no levying of war or giving aid or comfort in the above proposed inscription.Not that semantics has anything to do with this discussion, but I will entertain your point. Taking down the government I would think would take an act of war. By the definition you provided seems to cover this.
How would Fife's proposed inscription cover this? Because I don't see it.
QUOTE(scubatim)
QUOTE(logophage)
QUOTE
The basis of the First Amendment regarding religion isn't freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.
I have no idea what this quip means. I assume it's just punditry.
The point is that the government can't tell me if my religious beliefs are valid or not. Freedom from religion implies that I am free of religion. Freedom of religion implies that I can have any religion I choose without governmental opression.
Freedom FROM religion could imply that you're free from being oppressed by (a/any) religion. Why not just say what you really mean rather than using a catch phrase? So, how exactly does this relate to the debate? I'm confused.
QUOTE(scubatim)
By not allowing this citizen to express his grandfather's love of God, is restricting him from expressing his religion.
Yes, in some sense you are correct. The government has