Jerry Falwell just died

[Care4all]

Shogun, I have followed your discussions on the palestinian issue with great interest and agree with many of the points you made there.

But here I have to disagree with you buddy.

The foundations of the secular state must be protected in a sound democratic state by a legal mechanism known in latin countries as “cláusula pétrea" (stone clause, a constitutional clause that protects the core ideals of the state from any bill seeking alterations).

There is almost a consensus among the greatest theorists of constitutional law that the most fundamental achievements of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution (democracy and the secular state) must be protect by this kind of legal mechanisms even against the will of the majority.

This sounds paradoxical only to people who have an incomplete understanding of the democratic system.

Democracy is not only about the will of the majority but also the protection of the minorities and the preservation of the secular nature of the state plays a major part in this protection (see the following post for a concrete, personal example).

The undermining of the basis of the modern democratic, secular state using democracy itself should never be one of the “prerrogatives” allowed by sound, solid democratic states.

Very well said, and on the mark!!!

care

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, I have followed your discussions on the palestinian issue with great interest and agree with many of the points you made there.
But here I have to disagree with you buddy.
The foundations of the secular state must be protected in a sound democratic state by a legal mechanism known in latin countries as “cláusula pétrea" (stone clause, a constitutional clause that protects the core ideals of the state from any bill seeking alterations).
There is almost a consensus among the greatest theorists of constitutional law that the most fundamental achievements of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution (democracy and the secular state) must be protected by this kind of legal mechanisms even against the will of the majority.
This sounds paradoxical only to people who have an incomplete understanding of the democratic system.
Democracy is not only about the will of the majority but also the protection of the minorities and the preservation of the secular nature of the state plays a major part in this protection (see the following post for a concrete, personal example).
The undermining of the basis of the modern democratic, secular state using democracy itself should never be one of the “prerrogatives” allowed by sound, solid democratic states.

we already have a bill of rights to protect the minority AND the mechanism necessary to include (anti-discrimination laws) protections and to exclude protections (yelling fire in a theatre, protest zones, gun regulation, etc) based upon the votes of our elected officials. Who is to say that the will of the state is compramised by the decisions of voting american majority as long as the exact standard of protection expressed in the constitution is maintained?

In short.. what law, exactly, did Falwell break when organizing his moral majoirty?

You assume that the will of the state conflicts with the will of the voting population out trying to elect those who will create laws in accordance with their opinions about cultural norms.. Until protections for minority classes, such as that which became the result of the civil rights era, are legislated into reality then there is no constitutional basis for claiming that the state has an interest in thwarting the will of its majority population. Hell, the first amendment pretty much validates falwells foray into politics.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Where does the constitution say that only secular ideals may fuels political movements?

 

[Care4all]

we already have a bill of rights to protect the minority AND the mechanism necessary to include (anti-discrimination laws) protections and to exclude protections (yelling fire in a theatre, protest zones, gun regulation, etc) based upon the votes of our elected officials. Who is to say that the will of the state is compramised by the decisions of voting american majority as long as the exact standard of protection expressed in the constitution is maintained?

In short.. what law, exactly, did Falwell break when organizing his moral majoirty?

You assume that the will of the state conflicts with the will of the voting population out trying to elect those who will create laws in accordance with their opinions about cultural norms.. Until protections for minority classes, such as that which became the result of the civil rights era, are legislated into reality then there is no constitutional basis for claiming that the state has an interest in thwarting the will of its majority population. Hell, the first amendment pretty much validates falwells foray into politics.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Where does the constitution say that only secular ideals may fuels political movements?

Shogun,

I think he was commenting on where you stated that the majority rules in a democracy, (paraphrased).

And Jose is correct, the majority does NOT always rule in our Democratic REPUBLIC....and in the way our government was set up...

it was set up to protect the minority...

As an example, the Democrats are the majority in the house and in the Senate, but they still can not get the president to agree to a timetable for withdraw in the war....

Because the way it is set up, the minority in the senate can filibuster. Or the minority in the senate, if they decide to not go with the majority, can keep a veto from the president from being over ridden....

Our government is set up to prevent the tyrany of the majority, we are NOT a majority rules gvt.

and on the rest of what you have said, I agree....Jerry falwell has the right to voice his opinion as with anyone else.....

He can't do it from the pulpit, or his foundation loses tax exempt status....but he can do it and has every right to do it.

the first amendment protects religious speech in the PUBLIC SQUARE....from government interference.

care

 

[Shogun]

I would also like to use this occasion to congratulate Matt, Loki and all the others by their solid, vigorous defence of the secular state against all the Torquemadas, Richard Lionhearts and Knights of the Round Table who roam this message board at will after midnight.

: )

PS: Despite our minor disagreement, I definitely do not include Shogun in this theocratic group cited above.

gracias.. sometimes it does one good to argue the other side in order to gain perspective and break easy stereotypes..

in regards to falwell... sure, i find his ideas to be dispicable.. but he made use of the very governmental system that we like touting to the world.. he COULD have been the kind to kill in order to push an agenda.. in this day and age it is my opinion that his very interaction in politics validates democracy and a nation as rich in cultures and conflicts as ours.



hell, maybe im wrong.. who knows...

 

[Shogun]

"Shogun,
I think he was commenting on where you stated that the majority rules in a democracy, (paraphrased).
And Jose is correct, the majority does NOT always rule in our Democratic REPUBLIC....and in the way our government was set up..."


Hence that bill of rights I mentioned.. which, you have every tool available to include or exclude to the fancy of the voting public.

point in case:
the supreme court didnt mandate civil rights legilation.. civil rights legislation was passed using the proper tools of our democracy.



"it was set up to protect the minority..."

again, ill direct you to the exact manifestation of the bill of rights and any applicable amendment that was properly legislated... and not just that which we tend to think applies...



"As an example, the Democrats are the majority in the house and in the Senate, but they still can not get the president to agree to a timetable for withdraw in the war...."



uh.. whats the spread? 51-49? Would you like to ponder what the result would have been if the dems ruled the senate by a commanding 75-25 senate seats?



"Because the way it is set up, the minority in the senate can filibuster. Or the minority in the senate, if they decide to not go with the majority, can keep a veto from the president from being over ridden...."


the fillibuster rules are not a constitutioal constant. AS we were made well aware of during the last congressional season and bill frists constant threat... AS we see with nancy attempting similar tactics... house and sente rules are a lot more fluid than how you describe them.



"Our government is set up to prevent the tyrany of the majority, we are NOT a majority rules gvt."


ill remember that the next election that is ruled by the majority of votes. Again, if you want to add consideration to protected status then legislate such.. RIGHT NOW the fact is that it is illegal to discriminate against race.. now, is it legal to discriminate according to sexuality? currently, yes.. want to change that according to your opinion? do like Falwell did and organize enough support to pass legislation....

thats all IM saying..



"and on the rest of what you have said, I agree....Jerry falwell has the right to voice his opinion as with anyone else.....
He can't do it from the pulpit, or his foundation loses tax exempt status....but he can do it and has every right to do it."


"from the pulpit" restrictions has all fo the bite of a geriatric poodle with feathers for teath.. dont you think these people gather elsewhere and STILL find common ground with each other in organizing presidential candidates like ronald reagan and bush?



"the first amendment protects religious speech in the PUBLIC SQUARE....from government interference."

it also protects quite a bit more.. including freedom to practice religon as the likes of Falwell sees fit AND the right to gather AND petition the government thereof...

ALL which was used by Falwell to validate democracy as a working system even if his political opposites are still smarting from such a grassroots effort.

 

[Superlative]

Bold or color the other persons text. it makes it easier on others. or just me.

Please.

 

[Shogun]

Bold or color the other persons text. it makes it easier on others. or just me.

whats the magic word?

 

[Alucard]

So you believe God let 9/11 happen because of abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and secularism?

No, but I do believe Islamic extemist hate us, and they gather support because the liberals have forced Americans to accept and embrace Killing Babies for birth control, feminism,homosexuality and secularism.

Yes absolutely.

Thats why you dont see an out cry from the Islamic religous community condemning the attacks. They agree with the terrorist in that respect, they see us as an immoral society, and in many ways they are right.

 

[Superlative]

Thats why you dont see an out cry from the Islamic religous community condemning the attacks. They agree with the terrorist in that respect, they see us as an immoral society, and in many ways they are right.

As far as i remember The middle east felt overwhelming compassion and empathy for the US after 9/11

You dont think they may hate us now cause we've killed over 65,000 of them in return?

 

[Shogun]

perhaps youd feel better about your environment if you moved to Saudi Arabia and hung out with people who seem to share your opinion on this secular culture?

 

[Superlative]

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.[/I]-- Rev Jerry Falwell


I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.

-- Rev Jerry Falwell, cited in Cary McMullen, "Falwell: Now Is the Time for Gospel," in the Lakeland (Florida) Ledger (November 12, 2001), quoted from Randy Cassingham, This is True (18 November 2001).

Falwell added: "We visit prisoners on death row, and some of them are saved, but we believe their sentences should be carried out because they have a debt to society."

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F Harris,
"God Gave US 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)


AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.-- Jerry Falwell


The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength


I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition, "The Two faces of Jerry Falwell"

We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell

 

[mattskramer]

No, but I do believe Islamic extemist hate us, and they gather support because the liberals have forced Americans to accept and embrace Killing Babies for birth control, feminism,homosexuality and secularism.

So, should we outlaw homosexuality and secularism because Islamic militants might attack us if we don’t?

“I don’t like your views and your behavior. Shape up or I’ll attack you.” No. I’m sorry but that does not click with me.

Thats why you dont see an out cry from the Islamic religous community condemning the attacks. They agree with the terrorist in that respect, they see us as an immoral society, and in many ways they are right.

I see many instances in which Islamic leaders condemn the attacks.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

 

[red states rule]

As far as i remember The middle east felt overwhelming compassion and empathy for the US after 9/11

You dont think they may hate us now cause we've killed over 65,000 of them in return?

You must be a Rosie lover

The US killed them - not the terrorists, is her latest rant

 

[Alucard]

If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.[/I]-- Rev Jerry Falwell


I had a student ask me, "Could the savior you believe in save Osama bin Laden?" Of course, we know the blood of Jesus Christ can save him, and then he must be executed.

-- Rev Jerry Falwell, cited in Cary McMullen, "Falwell: Now Is the Time for Gospel," in the Lakeland (Florida) Ledger (November 12, 2001), quoted from Randy Cassingham, This is True (18 November 2001).

Falwell added: "We visit prisoners on death row, and some of them are saved, but we believe their sentences should be carried out because they have a debt to society."

God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

-- Rev Jerry Falwell, blaming civil libertarians, feminists, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters for the terrorist attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to which Rev Pat Robertson agreed, quoted from John F Harris,
"God Gave US 'What We Deserve,' Falwell Says," The Washington Post (September 14, 2001)


AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.-- Jerry Falwell


The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, Sermon, July 4, 1976

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength


I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One's misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.-- Rev Jerry Falwell, USA Today Chat, quoted from The Religious Freedom Coalition, "The Two faces of Jerry Falwell"

We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism ... we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today ... our battle is with Satan himself.
-- Rev Jerry Falwell

Are they suppose to be outragous quotes?

I agree with everyone of them!

 

[mattskramer]

Are they suppose to be outragous quotes?

I agree with everyone of them!

I think that Falwell said many outrageous, crass, and offensive things.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

I still do not hope that he goes to hell.
I can disagree with his statements without hating the human being.

 

[red states rule]

I think that Falwell said many outrageous, crass, and offensive things.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

I still do not hope that he goes to hell.
I can disagree with his statements without hating the human being.

None worse then what the left has said about him in the last 48 hours

 

[mattskramer]

None worse then what the left has said about him in the last 48 hours

Nothing better or worse than what the right says about the left or what the let says about the right. I already gave you examples of liberals – even enemies – saying pleasant things about Falwell. As expected, you ignored them. Oh well. Go on playing your simple game and look for examples of bad liberals while ignoring the good. Find examples of good conservatives and ignore the bad. Good night.

 

[red states rule]

Nothing better or worse than what the right says about the left or what the let says about the right. I already gave you examples of liberals – even enemies – saying pleasant things about Falwell. As expected, you ignored them. Oh well. Go on playing your simple game and look for examples of bad liberals while ignoring the good. Find examples of good conservatives and ignore the bad. Good night.

I have the few nice comments from the left

Libs did the same thing when Tony Snow went back for more cancer treatments

There is nothing else like seeing the love and tolerance of the left

 

[Alucard]

So, should we outlaw homosexuality and secularism because Islamic militants might attack us if we don’t

Well to pacify the liberals we have special hate crime laws protecting queers to a higher degree than the rest of us.

To pacify the secular liberal We took the seperation of church and state out of context, and proceeded to take religion out of schools when we should of been putting more religion in. Istead of our children learning about EVERY religion of the world and allowing them to recieve the highest degree of education in the world. We robbed them creating some illusion that religion either doesnt exist,or is too dangerous to be even mentioned.

As far as stopping Islamic militants from attacking us after 9/11. Once again we pacified the liberal giving terrorists rights and protection when we should of been chopping off heads and taking no prisoners...

Americas worst enemy is here alright, and its not illegal aliens or Muslims, its liberals

“I don’t like your views and your behavior. Shape up or I’ll attack you.” No. I’m sorry but that does not click with me

I see many instances in which Islamic leaders condemn the attacks.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Many? what are you smokin ?... I would say there has been a FEW instances when Islamic leaders have condemned attacks. And in most cases it was ONLY to protect their own asses because they were afraid of retaliation...

 

[Alucard]

perhaps youd feel better about your environment if you moved to Saudi Arabia and hung out with people who seem to share your opinion on this secular culture?

Na... I think we should just eliminate liberal secular culture we have here...