Tolerant Atheists Steal Court-Sanctioned Cross

[JoltinJoe]

The framers of our constitution were thinkers molded by the Enlightenment period. They rejected the concept that the sovereign ruled by divine right and that the rights of the people were in turn derived from and at the election of the sovereign, who held that authority as a result of being designee of the divine.

They instead asserted a natural law perspective of the grounding of the rights of the people, and the authority of the sovereign which inverted the "divine right" model. They grounded their vision of government on the model that the Creator imbued all with certain inalienable, natural rights which no sovereign may lawfully invade.

In their vision, for a soverign to have legitimacy, it must derive its authority from the people, thus inverting the divine right claim:

Divine Right:

Creator -----------> Sovereign ------------------> The People
Thus: Creator > Sovereign > The People

Natural Rights Model:

Creator ------------>The People ------------> Sovereign
Thus, Creator > The People > The Sovereign

Or, as expressed in words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (This is from the Declaration of Indepedence, not the Constitution, but it represents the founders' vision and further was provided as notice to the King that they were rejectng his claim that he governed over them as a matter of divine right).

Our constitution involves a delegation of authority (limited authority), to the federal government by the People, which may govern in accordance with this written delegation, and as so limited, with the consent of the governed. The most critical limitation placed on the federal government is that the inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL are paramount. The government has virtually no authority to invade those inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

In oder to maintain the natural law construct on which our federal constitution is premised, it is vitally important to maintain the distinction between the people and the sovereign. It is this construct which protects the individual and those inalienable rights which he possesses, as imbued by his Creator, from unlawful invasion by the sovereign.

The problem with the late 19th and 20th century construct that the "government" is the people is that, in such a society, the collective right of "the people/sovereign" becomes philosophically more important than the right of any individual. This flows from the claim that the rights of the state, which represents the collective rights of the people, are paramount to any claim to indiviaul right. So, although this construct sounds humanistic on its face, it ultimately requires the yielding of individual rights to the assertion of the collective rights of the people/sovereign.

In this model:

Sovereign/"The People" > Individual.

What follows is that rights we see an inalienable, for example, the right to speech, own property, practice religion, etc., become secondary to the interests of the sovereign.

So I hope you understand why I jokingly referred to you as "comrade." Your concept was precisely the model of government asserted by the Soviet Union.

We are not the government. The government works for us and should be accountable to us.

[D1B]

Joe, like countless nativity scenes and ten commandments, the cross needs to go and will go, by court order. This one is just a little more difficult because of the war dead connection, but it will go. It has no business being on public land.

Where are the atheists responsible for the theft?

[dbackjon]

Interesting Discussion here...


Joe, I thought of this thread last night during a news story about fire restrictions on BLM land - the BLM release used the phrase "public lands"

You still have never answered the question of if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could it allow claims under the Homestead Act, and The Mining Act?

Or how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could grant railroads land in exchange for them building railroads across said public land?

When Arizona became a state in 1912, the FEDERAL government gave the state ownership of millions of acres, to be used for schools.

When my ancestors homestead the family farm in Illinois, the deed (which my dad still has) came from the Federal Government, signed by President Polk.

It is VERY, VERY clear that the public lands have been always owned by the Federal Government. You seem to be the only person that doesn't get that.

[travelinman67]

Joe, like countless nativity scenes and ten commandments, the cross needs to go and will go, by court order. This one is just a little more difficult because of the war dead connection, but it will go. It has no business being on public land.

Where are the atheists responsible for the theft?

D, you just received a constitutional spanking, AGAIN, by JJ. You can argue theology 'til the cows come home, but when it comes to law, you should know better than to take on Joe.

[JoltinJoe]

Interesting Discussion here...


Joe, I thought of this thread last night during a news story about fire restrictions on BLM land - the BLM release used the phrase "public lands"

You still have never answered the question of if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could it allow claims under the Homestead Act, and The Mining Act?

Or how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could grant railroads land in exchange for them building railroads across said public land?

When Arizona became a state in 1912, the FEDERAL government gave the state ownership of millions of acres, to be used for schools.

When my ancestors homestead the family farm in Illinois, the deed (which my dad still has) came from the Federal Government, signed by President Polk.

It is VERY, VERY clear that the public lands have been always owned by the Federal Government. You seem to be the only person that doesn't get that.

You keep blurring 20th and 21st century language with 19th century language/meaning.

I never said that the government did not own public (domain) lands. I said that it did not claim them as federal property. Thus, as the link I provided says, land which was acquired by the federal government as public (domain) lands from foreign sovereigns was subject to different rules and laws than "federal property."

The land-grant statutes you reference represented a formalization of the manner by which the government transferred public lands to private parties.

But here's the part which may illustrate what I've been trying to tell you. Prior to the enactment of those statues, it was common for settlers to claim, through possession, title to land, and then seek recognition of their claim. Because this process ultimately become unruly, more formalized means became necessary.

In the 1800s, however, many, many Christian churches were built on public domain lands as part of settlements in those lands. No one suggested that these houses of worship had to be torn down.

I have suggested that the status of this land in question was public domain lands in 1934. I see no evidence that the government withdrew any portion of the Mojave Desert from the public domain land (as per the process outlined above) prior to its transfer to the Bureau of Land Management sometime after 1946.

Therefore, while it may have been federal land in the sense that the federal government owned it, it doesn't seem that in 1934, this land would been subject to the principles then applicable to displays of religious symbols on federal property.

Moreover, the constitutional claim that a cross may not be displayed on federal property was not existent in 1934. As a principle of constitutional law, that arises decades later.

Also, if we were to take the position that all symbols which endorse religion -- previously placed on federal property prior to the announcement of the constitutional principle that the establishment clause barred such displays -- must now be removed, we might as well take a wrecking ball to most of our cherished public buildings, including the Capitol, the Jefferson Memorial, the White House, and even the Suprme Court building (itself built int the 1930s).

[kalm]

The framers of our constitution were thinkers molded by the Enlightenment period. They rejected the concept that the sovereign ruled by divine right and that the rights of the people were in turn derived from and at the election of the sovereign, who held that authority as a result of being designee of the divine.

They instead asserted a natural law perspective of the grounding of the rights of the people, and the authority of the sovereign which inverted the "divine right" model. They grounded their vision of government on the model that the Creator imbued all with certain inalienable, natural rights which no sovereign may lawfully invade.

In their vision, for a soverign to have legitimacy, it must derive its authority from the people, thus inverting the divine right claim:

Divine Right:

Creator -----------> Sovereign ------------------> The People
Thus: Creator > Sovereign > The People

Natural Rights Model:

Creator ------------>The People ------------> Sovereign
Thus, Creator > The People > The Sovereign

Or, as expressed in words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (This is from the Declaration of Indepedence, not the Constitution, but it represents the founders' vision and further was provided as notice to the King that they were rejectng his claim that he governed over them as a matter of divine right).

Our constitution involves a delegation of authority (limited authority), to the federal government by the People, which may govern in accordance with this written delegation, and as so limited, with the consent of the governed. The most critical limitation placed on the federal government is that the inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL are paramount. The government has virtually no authority to invade those inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

In oder to maintain the natural law construct on which our federal constitution is premised, it is vitally important to maintain the distinction between the people and the sovereign. It is this construct which protects the individual and those inalienable rights which he possesses, as imbued by his Creator, from unlawful invasion by the sovereign.

The problem with the late 19th and 20th century construct that the "government" is the people is that, in such a society, the collective right of "the people/sovereign" becomes philosophically more important than the right of any individual. This flows from the claim that the rights of the state, which represents the collective rights of the people, are paramount to any claim to indiviaul right. So, although this construct sounds humanistic on its face, it ultimately requires the yielding of individual rights to the assertion of the collective rights of the people/sovereign.

In this model:

Sovereign/"The People" > Individual.

What follows is that rights we see an inalienable, for example, the right to speech, own property, practice religion, etc., become secondary to the interests of the sovereign.

So I hope you understand why I jokingly referred to you as "comrade." Your concept was precisely the model of government asserted by the Soviet Union.

We are not the government. The government works for us and should be accountable to us.

Thanks for taking the time to provide a thoughtful response Joe.

I get what you’re saying about protecting the rights of the individual as represented by the state. But why is the word "common" used in the preamble and not the word individual? And why do the people vote for and receive federal representation at all?

Perhaps it’s a bit too 19th century for you, but I still think Lincoln nailed it at the Gettysburg Address. And when you separate people from their government you get an apathetic public who views government as an enemy. I think this detachment leads to bad government.

So I will respectfully agree to disagree, but here's a a couple of quotes from Jefferson that support your point to a certain extent.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual".

[kalm]

Interesting Discussion here...


Joe, I thought of this thread last night during a news story about fire restrictions on BLM land - the BLM release used the phrase "public lands"

You still have never answered the question of if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could it allow claims under the Homestead Act, and The Mining Act?

Or how the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could grant railroads land in exchange for them building railroads across said public land?

When Arizona became a state in 1912, the FEDERAL government gave the state ownership of millions of acres, to be used for schools.

When my ancestors homestead the family farm in Illinois, the deed (which my dad still has) came from the Federal Government, signed by President Polk.

It is VERY, VERY clear that the public lands have been always owned by the Federal Government. You seem to be the only person that doesn't get that.

You keep blurring 20th and 21st century language with 19th century language/meaning.

I never said that the government did not own public (domain) lands. I said that it did not claim them as federal property. Thus, as the link I provided says, land which was acquired by the federal government as public (domain) lands from foreign sovereigns was subject to different rules and laws than "federal property."

The land-grant statutes you reference represented a formalization of the manner by which the government transferred public lands to private parties.

But here's the part which may illustrate what I've been trying to tell you. Prior to the enactment of those statues, it was common for settlers to claim, through possession, title to land, and then seek recognition of their claim. Because this process ultimately become unruly, more formalized means became necessary.

In the 1800s, however, many, many Christian churches were built on public domain lands as part of settlements in those lands. No one suggested that these houses of worship had to be torn down.

I have suggested that the status of this land in question was public domain lands in 1934. I see no evidence that the government withdrew any portion of the Mojave Desert from the public domain land (as per the process outlined above) prior to its transfer to the Bureau of Land Management sometime after 1946.

Therefore, while it may have been federal land in the sense that the federal government owned it, it doesn't seem that in 1934, this land would been subject to the principles then applicable to displays of religious symbols on federal property.

Moreover, the constitutional claim that a cross may not be displayed on federal property was not existent in 1934. As a principle of constitutional law, that arises decades later.

Also, if we were to take the position that all symbols which endorse religion -- previously placed on federal property prior to the announcement of the constitutional principle that the establishment clause barred such displays -- must now be removed, we might as well take a wrecking ball to most of our cherished public buildings, including the Capitol, the Jefferson Memorial, the White House, and even the Suprme Court building (itself built int the 1930s).

So in essence, there's a neccessary distinction between "public lands" and "federal property"?

This debate reminds me of the issue we had in our state capital building rotunda a couple of years back when an atheist put up this sign next to a nativity scene. It confirmed O'reeilly's deepest fears about the war on Christmas.



Next thing you know, some muslim group is going to want to build a mosque in close proximity to ground zero.

[D1B]

Joe, like countless nativity scenes and ten commandments, the cross needs to go and will go, by court order. This one is just a little more difficult because of the war dead connection, but it will go. It has no business being on public land.

Where are the atheists responsible for the theft?

D, you just received a constitutional spanking, AGAIN, by JJ. You can argue theology 'til the cows come home, but when it comes to law, you should know better than to take on Joe.

I always give Joe credit for his knowledge on both subjects. While it doesn't appear so here, I highly respect him and like him.

Key points to consider: The supreme court allowed the cross to stay in 5-4 vote, so this issue is not cleared up by any means. Joe's M.O. is often to create a strawman then declare victory while avoiding key elements. I just call him on this, and in this thread so is everyone else.

Joe, lost this thread right off the bat by erroneously blaming atheists for the theft. Did you forget about that? Again, a key element he strategically avoids.

Also, like the current cases against the church, this is still an ongoing battle and ultimately, IMO, the cross is going to go.

[JoltinJoe]

When I was in college, one of my roommates was a guy who thought like D1B. Atheist, communist (this was before the fall of Communism, although he still is a communist). I used to argue with all the time over things, and we would sometimes do those point/counterpoint commentaries for the paper (in which we might take a dig or two at each other just to keep people reading).

We thought it was funny that there were people on campus who thought we hated each other, and who were stunned to find out we lived in the same suite.