On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 17:47:51 -0500, Alamaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, which
said:
> >From www.wsws.org
>
> WSWS : News & Analysis : North America : US Elections
> The US elections: Lieberman's holy war against the Bill of Rights
> By Barry Grey
> 1 September 2000
> Back to screen version
>
> Speaking on Sunday, August 27 at the Fellowship Chapel Church in
> Detroit, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman
> declared, “the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not
> freedom from religion.”
So he wants to make it illegal and declare it unconstitutional to be an
atheist?
> In the face of scattered criticism of Lieberman's Detroit speech,
> Gore defended his running mate, while Lieberman himself said he
> would continue to preach from the campaign stump, calling his
> invocation of God and religion “the American way.”
Maybe Lieberman is the guy who, according to Biblical prophecy, wants to
set up a "one-world religion".
> The implications of Lieberman's Constitutional claims
>
> However limited the motivations behind Lieberman's preachments,
> his claim that the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from
> religion has far-reaching implications. He himself is, in all
> likelihood, incapable of conceiving of the political consequences
> that can result from prominent political figures trifling with
> such core Constitutional issues.
>
> On its face, Lieberman's interpretation of the First Amendment
> prohibition of state support for religion is inane. There cannot
> be freedom of religion without the right to be free from religion.
> The conceptual foundation for all democratic rights to free
> thought and expression is undermined if the secularist basis of
> the state is removed.
Well, he's a politician and he thinks like one -- in a convoluted,
sneaky and twisted way. He probably hasn't even read the constitution,
only the Bill of Rights.
> But Lieberman's cavalier attitude does not alter the fact that his
> attack on the secularist principle embodied in the First Amendment
> places a question mark over the legal foundation for a host of
> democratic rights, from the right to abortion to such issues as
> gay rights, divorce, equality of the sexes, and basic matters of
> privacy. A critical aspect of the Constitutional separation of
> church and state is the right to be “left alone,” i.e., to be free
> from the intrusive meddling of organized religion or the state
> into one's private affairs. If, as Lieberman claims, the
> Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion, then what
> is to prevent the state from imposing its concept of morality,
> based on religious beliefs, when it comes to sexual practices
> between consenting adults, personal relations inside and outside
> of wedlock, the teaching of evolution, or the content of the
> books, films, plays and music made available to the public?
They want to be like China and everything must be government approved --
from video games to dildoes -- nothing over 4 inches.
> Not only atheists, but also religious agnostics would be
> potentially subject to legal sanction or discrimination on account
> of their beliefs. The government could demand to know one's
> attitude toward God, or toward a specific religion, and one could
> be punished for not professing a belief in God or adherence to a
> particular faith. There would be nothing in the Constitution that
> in principle protected a person from being fired from his job
> because of his ideas on religion. Nor would there be a
> Constitutional barrier preventing the state from taxing the
> populace to support religions institutions.
Gee, and I always thought it would be the other way around -- that those
who believed in God would be punished because of there faith, and that
only atheists would be the free ones in the country.
However, I would like to bring up my experience in being called for jury
duty last year. You're required to state your name, some other
information -- and your religious affiliation. I proclaimed myself
"Individualist". I have reasons to believe in psychic impressions of
what's going on in a room and after saying "Individualist" I felt
awfully hot. Maybe it was because I know that most people proclaimed
themselves to be Baptists (I live in the Bible Belt) and probably would
disapprove of someone who is an "individualist".
> Lieberman, in defending his views on religion and political
> affairs, has repeatedly stressed the role of religion in
> establishing a unifying ethical principle among the American
> people. He may sincerely believe in this conception. That,
> however, does not detract from the fact that his notion of the
> role of religion is reactionary, and reflects ignorance of the
> history of American common law and the evolution of the democratic
> principles that were laid down in the Constitution and
> subsequently expanded.
In other words, Lieberman is ignorant in that he seems to be either
unaware that this has never worked before, or he plans to use
ever-increasing pressure and coercion to force people to abide by his
legislated morals.
> The extension of democratic rights in the US was bound up with the
> idea that people had the right to think whatever they pleased, as
> long as they did not harm others or break the law. Whether they
> chose to live by the Judeo-Christian moral code was their own
> affair. What Lieberman is proposing is a retrogressive throwback
> to the notion of religious-based “ethical unity” that was
> prevalent prior to the American Revolution.
I don't think people will go for it. Besides, religion HAS to be an
individual choice for it to be sincere. What Lieberman supports, then,
is for people to simply act religious even if they aren't that way in
their hearts. I guess that means we all have to act like politicians --
demons at the core, but pious on the surface.
> Indifference to core issues of democratic rights
>
> Given the enormity of Lieberman's attack on core Constitutional
> issues, the response has been remarkably and disturbingly muted.
What percentage of Americans are religious? Supposedly, the world over,
90% of the people believe in a power higher than themselves -- some kind
of diety. Maybe Lieberman is picking "democracy" over freedom from
religion and saying that the majority rules, so if the majority are
religious, then everyone must be. It would work like the drug laws --
sort of. Even though 69% of the people want people to have medical
marijuana, the federal government doesn't want that and is doing
everything it can to stop it.
> An exception to the general unconcern is the Anti-Defamation
> League (ADL), which issued an open letter on August 28 denouncing
> Lieberman's use of the elections to promote religion. The
> signatories, ADL National Chairman Howard Berkowitz and National
> Director Abraham Foxman, correctly wrote, “The First Amendment
> requires that government neither support one religion over another
> nor the religious over the nonreligious.”
I think it boils down to a simple fact. Obviously the government is
going to take the path of least resistance to make their plans flow more
smoothly. The constitution causes too many problems for them so they
are working on eliminating it from the books. Of course, that much is
obvious.
Ty
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
