Causes even more confusion

Post #145,267 by orion 3/10/04 12:05:14 PM Reply	Causes even more confusion [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7] Apparently certain religious symbols may be allowed on public display on government property. Then again, some of them may not be displayed. So if it is used in a secular manner, it may be displayed? I am still not understanding how this applies to the Constitution as it does not specifically say secular or not. Secular is a vauge word, and it depends on the person doing the judgement if something is secular or not. One person may say that Santa Claus is secular and can be displayed on public goverment property, and another can say Santa Claus is not secular and therefore has no place on public government property. Secular, as I understand it is worldly, material, not overly religious. I could be wrong. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,269 by pwhysall 3/10/04 12:13:39 PM Reply	Secular isn't vague. It has a precise meaning - it simply means "not having any connection with religion". Santa Claus is clearly a religious symbol, because he's quite exactly connected to the Christian festival of Christmas. The figure of "Santa Claus" is actually derived from the European Saint Nicholas. No Xmas = No Santa. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,274 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 12:30:00 PM Reply	By that reasoning then... A Christmas tree is a clearly religious symbol (this time pagan) and so should not be displayed either. Yet in the USA the presence of Christmas trees in various public spaces (including government offices) is readily accepted. Illogical as it may strike you, that isn't how the US court system actually draws the line when they say "secular". Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,294 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:04:57 PM Reply	I didn't reason at all. I just disagreed with Norman when he said that "secular" is a vague word. It isn't. That's all. Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,338 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 2:35:11 PM Reply	Do try to keep up, willya? Words have multiple definitions. By the definition and reasoning which lead you to classify Santa Claus as a religious symbol, you would also have to classify Christmas trees as a religious symbol. Which, in popular usage, it certainly isn't. Furthermore if it came to a court of law, it wouldn't be as well. Splitting linguistic hairs to come to a wrong conclusion about how courts will decide something is pointless. The courts will decide as they decide. Ours is not to tell them how they should intend their language. It is to understand what they did intend, regardless of how much we argue with how it was put. Furthermore you can drop the non-sequitor. Yes, I'm talking about: Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Since you seem to be missing the boat, Norm asked about what was discussed at [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7]. That turns out to be the legality of the placement of symbols with possible religious significance in courthouses. We are not comparing and contrasting between their right to put up such a symbol in a court and the right of government to order you to do it. We are contrasting between why a creche was allowed at one courthouse, while at a second courthouse the creche was not allowed but a menorah was. Now questions of what underlies this may seem to be splitting hairs. And it is. Unless it is the legal system that you live under, and you wish to understand it (as inane as it might be). So if you're not interested in the topic, ignore the discussion. You don't live here, after all. But if you do participate, I'd appreciate it if you at least try to figure out what we're discussing. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,275 by orion 3/10/04 12:31:19 PM Reply	Not what the dictionary says [link\|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secular&x=23&y=17\|http://www.m-w.com/c...secular&x=23&y=17] Main Entry: 1sec\ufffdu\ufffdlar Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime 1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal (secular concerns) b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical (secular courts) (secular landowners) 2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation (a secular priest) 3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration I was using the first defitinition. As you can plainly see there is more than one defintion which makes it vauge and ambiguous. BTW didn't someone once post in here that Coca Cola invented Santa Claus? I searched and found this: [link\|http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp\|http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp] Origins: Santa Claus is perhaps the most remarkable of all the figures associated with Christmas. To us, Santa has always been an essential part of the Christmas celebration, but the modern image of Santa didn't develop until well into the 19th century. Moreover, he didn't spring to life fully-formed as a literary creation or a commercial invention (as did his famous reindeer, Rudolph). Santa Claus was an evolutionary creation, brought about by the fusion of two religious personages (St. Nicholas and Christkindlein, the Christ child) to become a fixed image which is now the paramount symbol of the secular Christmas celebration. It clearly states that Santa Claus has become the paramount symbol of the secular Christmas celebration. As I did state, something being secular is relative to the person doing the judgement. Peter apparently sees Santa as not being secular, but Snopes does see Santa as secular. This just adds to the confusion. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,292 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:03:02 PM Reply	Oh yes it is. [link\|http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=71094&dict=CALD\|http://dictionary.ca...y=71094&dict=CALD] Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,293 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:04:14 PM Reply	That's not a proper Engrish dictionary As it's from Cambridge. :-)
Post #145,295 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:05:13 PM Reply	Which is in which country (hint hint)? Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,297 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:08:32 PM Reply	United Kingdom?
Post #145,298 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:10:53 PM Reply	"United Kingdom of A, B, C and D E" Value of A is? Bonus points for filling in the rest without googling. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,307 by ChrisR 3/10/04 1:35:08 PM Reply	Araq?
Post #145,310 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:39:03 PM Reply	/me pulls the IFS lever. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,314 by deSitter 3/10/04 1:42:27 PM Reply	Beeria, Crikey, Disrael, and Effinghanistan -drl
Post #145,315 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:42:53 PM Reply	You've won a free IFS! Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,316 by Silverlock 3/10/04 1:43:22 PM Reply	Anglos, Berbers, Chinese and Damned Europeans? ----------------------------------------- "If you don't vote, it's your fault!" -jb4 George W. "I cannot tell a lie" George W. B. "I cannot tell a lie from lie related program activities"
Post #145,317 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:44:41 PM Reply	My IFS machine is busy tonight... Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,319 by admin 3/10/04 1:52:36 PM Reply	Arrogant Bastards with Crappy Dictionary Examples? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,325 by pwhysall 3/10/04 2:03:58 PM Reply	STAB! Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,328 by admin 3/10/04 2:09:36 PM Reply	Ah... Anglic Boffins Can't Describe English, Arguing Balefully, "Colonials Defy Eloquence". Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,334 by pwhysall 3/10/04 2:29:15 PM Reply	Administrative Boofheads Continually Defy Elegance Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,336 by deSitter 3/10/04 2:31:28 PM 3/10/04 4:16:37 PM Reply	WOBAFGKMRNS "Wow! Oh be a fine girl, kiss me right now sweetie!" (who can identify without looking?) -drl Edited by deSitter March 10, 2004, 04:16:37 PM EST Expand All History
Post #145,347 by admin 3/10/04 3:01:32 PM Reply	Re: WOBAFGKMNRS Stellar sequence, innit? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,365 by deSitter 3/10/04 3:53:46 PM Reply	you get a gold star -drl
Post #145,367 by admin 3/10/04 3:56:42 PM Reply	Not much of a stretch. I was only a year away from an Astronomy degree when I quit... :-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,369 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:15:58 PM Reply	hmm go back? exciting times for astronomy -drl
Post #145,372 by admin 3/10/04 4:24:46 PM Reply	Two reasons: 1) Tensor calculus 2) Gotta pay the mortgage Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,376 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:30:30 PM Reply	Sheeat I could teach you tensors in a month. If you ever want tutoring just say "go" and you'll have it down, bro. Seriously. -drl
Post #145,379 by inthane-chan 3/10/04 4:34:38 PM Reply	Or Scott could just get his son to teach him...
Post #145,382 by deSitter 3/10/04 4:38:00 PM Reply	I'm sure Scott can handle it Few subjects are taught as poorly as vector and tensor analysis. It's just a matter of presenting it correctly from a non-mathematician's point of view. That doesn't mean less rigorous or correct, just less general. -drl
Post #145,383 by inthane-chan 3/10/04 4:38:53 PM Reply	joke == missed. :D
Post #145,395 by admin 3/10/04 5:05:30 PM Reply	You make an assumption... ... that I want to learn tensors. There's a reason I'm not a physicist or a mathematician or an astronomer... I don't like doing math. This has nothing to do with my ability to do math; it's all motivation. :-P Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #145,348 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 3:02:51 PM Reply	Without googling England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. That is not exactly in order of aquisition. IIRC, England's claim to Ireland, asserted with varying degrees of success, goes back to the twelfth centry when the Pope gave Ireland to Henry I. And Northern Ireland corresponds closely (and not coincidentally) with the area in which England long had the strongest hold, aka "The Pale". Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,351 by pwhysall 3/10/04 3:05:26 PM Reply	You are correct! No, it's not in the order of acquisition, but it is in the order that rolls off the tongue best ;) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,302 by orion 3/10/04 1:20:47 PM Reply	In which country is the law in question being examined? We have different definitions for things over here you know. If it was a UK Law, you could use a UK definiton. When in Rome do as the Romans do and all that. :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #145,270 by deSitter 3/10/04 12:20:45 PM Reply	The Bottom line.. ..is that these things are the direct outcome of the evolution of individual rights vs. royal prerogative in England, and in particular the right to be Protestant. It's practically a racial memory. This was embodied in the "Bill of Rights" and "Toleration Acts" of 1689, which were enacted after the abuses of the Catholic King James II. At the same time these rights were coming into being, the English prevented the King from simply dissolving Parliament at his whim, and set an election schedule that had to be strictly followed. It is no accident that our own Consitution follows this same pattern of strictly defining the form of government, as well as the intent in the Bill of Rights. The intent is clearly to keep government and religion apart, and so any amount of legal argumentation needed will be resorted to, to ensure that it happens. Now the odd thing is, racial memories can fade. Just as important as church-state wall is the suspicion of standing armies and the right to bear arms in self-defense. This aspect of the issue has been all but forgotten. -drl
Post #145,318 by danreck 3/10/04 1:48:16 PM Reply	The footnotes to the bottom line... First of all, well said... Second, you write: Now the odd thing is, racial memories can fade. Just as important as church-state wall is the suspicion of standing armies and the right to bear arms in self-defense. This aspect of the issue has been all but forgotten. I think that perhaps the framers did not even consider that a man and a man would "want" to marry... Or that "Arms" would include scoped automatic machine guns... or that any religion other than Christianity... Or that women or non property owners would "want" to vote... Which kind of brings us back to your recent screeds... And maybe, just maybe, there need to be a few more qualifying lines thrown into the "sacred scrolls"... :-) Just a few thoughts, Danno
Post #145,326 by deSitter 3/10/04 2:05:39 PM Reply	Re: The footnotes to the bottom line... As I write this, the Senate is voting on some 430 billion dollars for standing army funding. We should have better memories. Jefferson would have been horrified. The wheels are clearly off the wagon at this point. Wrangling over intent is pointless - the intent is clear. In the days of Jefferson the point was to make it possible for people to be free and productive and uncoerced by the State, however the latter was embodied. The idea that a person could act willy-nilly in any way he deemed fit would never have occured to them as something worth thinking about. -drl
Post #145,341 by danreck 3/10/04 2:43:25 PM Reply	Jefferson is spinning like a rotisserie chicken in his grave But I've been saying that since 1980. I would have been saying it since 1960 had I been born (was born in late '61 after the fall). Adlai was the last man who understood, the Democratic party and all that followed were in the shadow of RFK and that ilk... Ashcroft is a lightweight in comparison. I can hear the echoes of my own voice (especially during election years), but damnit, the party is irrelevent anymore. We (TFPeople) are no longer invited to "the party". That is the problem as I see it. The party sells us the President (choose flavor a or b) the same way that they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us everything from youth to religion at the same time they sell us our wars. But their are lives in the balance (plagarized from Jackson Browne). For a country that is so "legalistic" we sure as hell are not very well versed on law, justice, or equality. Or democracy. DRL, you are not alone. As I've said to Ash, I've just taken the next logical leap. It's not pretty 'cause I don't have any room for optimism. Dan God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I'll say it again God is a concept By which we measure Our pain I don't believe in magic I don't believe in I-ching I don't believe in Bible I don't believe in tarot I don't believe in Hitler I don't believe in Jesus I don't believe in Kennedy I don't believe in Buddha I don't believe in Mantra I don't believe in Gita I don't believe in Yoga I don't believe in kings I don't believe in Elvis I don't believe in Zimmerman I don't believe in Beatles I just believe in me Yoko and me And that's reality The dream is over What can I say? The dream is over Yesterday I was the Dreamweaver But now I'm reborn I was the Walrus But now I'm John And so dear friends You'll just have to carry on The dream is over J. Lennon - The Dream is Over
Post #145,273 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 12:27:31 PM Reply	I didn't say that it was simple It was not the presence of the creche that made it unconstitutional. It was how it was presented. In other words you can have a creche in the courthouse. You can't have it on the center staircase, with a prominent sign saying that it was donated by the Catholic Church, with an angel holding a sign saying, "Gloria in Exclesis Deo." The presence can be justified as a secular symbol of a widely observed holiday. The manner that it was presented pretty clearly supports Christianity in general, and The Catholic Church in particular. Sure, there is ambiguity in these dividing lines. But ambiguity is hardly new in our legal system. That is what precedent is for, and generally lawyers and judges who know the precedent have little trouble figuring out whether any given situation is going to be ruled OK or not. Without knowing precedent, you won't have a chance of figuring it out. Nor can anyone just show it to you written out in black and white, because it is the nature of the beast that any specific statute that you write will have grey areas that need clarification. Particularly once it has been read by people with different assumptions and understandings of language. (Yes, a major problem for the legal system is that the English language changes over time. Words written in the 1700's do not always mean today what they did then...) Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,327 by Nightowl 3/10/04 2:08:37 PM Reply	Makes me wonder... Why they swear you in in court on a Bible then, and make you say So Help Me God. What if you are wanting to be sworn in on the Koran, or the Book Of Mormon? Interesting thoughts there. Nightowl >8# "Don't be a cynic and disconsolate preacher. Don't bewail and moan. Omit the negative propositions. Challenge us with incessant affirmatives. Don't waste yourself in rejection, or bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post #145,344 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 2:49:19 PM Reply	They don't make you At least not in theory. While it is customary to swear on a Bible and say, "So Help Me God", it is not required, and you will not be forced to do it if you object. If you wish to swear on a different religious object, or if you wish to make it an affirmation, you can. However the tradition which has been brought down from English Common law is quite strong. As late as 1939, no less than 5 states and The District of Columbia would not excluded testimony from atheists, and in a dozen more any such testimony was routinely attacked on grounds that without belief in God to keep you to the truth, you lacked credibility. I strongly suspect that there are courtrooms today (particularly in the Bible Belt) meeting the latter description. Certainly there are potential jurors who would be swayed by that argument. Something to think about when you see atheists like me rooting for maintaining the separation of Church and State. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,345 by Nightowl 3/10/04 2:53:01 PM Reply	True, but what I really meant was that if there is this big deal about separation of Church and State, why use a Bible at all? Why not a Lie Detector, or some other concept. It seems that the "separation" is only when it suits their purpose, I guess. Sorry I wasn't more clear before. Nightowl >8# "Don't be a cynic and disconsolate preacher. Don't bewail and moan. Omit the negative propositions. Challenge us with incessant affirmatives. Don't waste yourself in rejection, or bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post #145,354 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 3:16:31 PM Reply	Well, apply the Lemon test The Lemon test (so-named after [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602\|Lemon v. Kurtzman]) says that the standard for evaluation is this: Does it serve a secular purpose? Yes. Many religious people are more likely to tell the truth after swearing on the Bible. Does it have a primary effect of advancing a particular religious belief? No. Requiring it, or treating different religious oaths differently would. But as long as you are neutral, it doesn't. Does it involve "excessive entanglement" of government and religion? No. Furthermore tradition has a strong influence. Given that it has been accepted for centuries as part of our legal system, without very specific good cause, it won't change any time soon. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!