As a Secular American, I believe strongly in protecting the secular heritage of our democracy. Our Constitution makes clear that religion has no place in government, and that the government’s power derives from the people it serves, not a deity.
In Justice John Paul Stevens, we had a voice on the Supreme Court worthy of the founders; a voice that stood against the unconstitutional encroachment of religion into government, and a voice that explicitly took into account non-theistic Americans in his decisions.
John Paul Stevens was not just any justice. John Paul Stevens is a Justice for the ages. He stood for the timeless secular character of our constitutional heritage. Mr. President, you have a momentous and historic responsibility that goes far beyond any one time or particular political climate. Please be sure that your nominee to replace Justice Stevens follows his truly great example. Particularly when certain justices espouse theocratic philosophies, it is essential that your next Supreme Court nominee emulates the Stevens legacy of denying special rights for religion, upholding the separation of church and state, and acknowledging the tens of millions of Secular Americans who always lose when religion is privileged.
Justice Stevens is easily one of our greatest living Americans -- a Justice who has consistently stood up for what is right. Please ensure that his replacement stands for the separation of church and state with a passion and brilliance worthy of John Paul Stevens.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
How about an open letter to all three branches of the federal government...support the damn Consititution..that is what you are sworn to do. Specifically give some consideration to the 10th Ammendment. Separation of Church and State is a political position not a law.
The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from various documents of several of the Founders of the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The modern concept is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court, though the Court has not always fully embraced the principle.
It is my assertion that the court needs more justices who will fully embrace this principle.
Only problem with your discussion csm is this. Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional congress and he was never a justice. Obviously the same for Locke.
It now becomes clear the government is attempting to stamp out religion more aggressively than the founders actually intended. A justice who makes decision based on the Constitution rather than empathy would no doubt agree this is indeed the case.
Referring to "God" in general terms on money, a monument a long side of a freeway or "Thou shalt not steal" on a plaque in no way establishes a religion unless one is a dubious paranoid. The nation is becoming to divided, to paranoid and much to intolerant. Lighten up out there
The Fly
Hey Fly, I disagree with your statement. First up, "The Founders" is an irrelevant phrase. There were multiple "Founders," each having varied opinions. Compromise was necessary to get things done. Today, we could use some of that compromise, but we have a party of "NO" in the Republicans and a party that until just recently was mostly inept, weak, and not willing to stand up for core principles in the Democrats. Much of that is still true about the Dems.
Is your position regarding Jefferson then that he was not a founder?
And the religious folks are much more intolerant than non-religious ones. Typically, you don't see non-religious folks attempting to control how others live. Not true for religiosos.
"White House gets CBS to remove blog post alleging possible high court nominee is gay
25 mins ago
There's not yet an official nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens — but the Obama White House's rapid-response machine is already working overtime to squelch speculation over the politics of the nominations process. Last week, it took just a few hours for the administration's communications team to tamp down a rumor that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on the short list of prospective nominees. (See our coverage of the Hillary rumor, and other names floated at the margins of the nomination debate here.) And yesterday, the administration blasted CBS News for a blog post on its Web site claiming that one of the people who is reportedly on that list — U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan — is a lesbian, eventually getting the news organization to retract the claim and take down the post."
Anybody who has read my posts knows my position on the world of the homosexual(my brother is a gay man and hell, I am libertarian), but I find this pretty disturbing when the President and his administration forces the press to do anything. Where does this end? Will the President force the press to change it's coverage of any war we find ourselves in, or force opponents to keep closed-mouthed.
And to top it off, I wouldn't be surprised if Janet Napalitano(another name being bandies about) was a lesbian also. Again, that is no big deal; I work for one. And I hope we get homosexuals in places of power because maybe then there will be hope for......atheists.
OK, Bawdy, can you prove the Obama administration FORCED anyone to do anything here? Seems to be quite a leap to me.
You got me, forced is too strong a word. How about pressured. That still is a bothersome action.
Well, perhaps. Forced would bother me a lot. Pressured? Depends on what that really means. Were there threats? Or merely requests?
I don't have a problem with a request (especially given the context of what we're discussing, namely a supposition about who might, maybe, possibly, at some point, potentially, be a SCOTUS nominee).
Problem is we might never know. A plausible threat could be access to the President and his staff. That would be CBS' bread and butter.
Take a look what Big O and his court did in attempt to paint Fox as a non-credible news outlet. I find his need to respond to Tea partiers, Limbaugh, the GOP and other detractors as childish and infantile. The position of POTUS should be above such pettiness but this is just another area where the Big O is spiraling into just a dot on the rear of a dragonfly's butt.
Fox is mostly propaganda. The president would do well to avoid Fox.
Furthermore, Mike, I find your statement ("I find his need to respond to Tea partiers, Limbaugh, the GOP and other detractors as childish and infantile") to be assuming facts not in evidence.
I just got a little taste of Congressional indignation towards Goldman Sachs in the hearings today. The phrase "gambling" came up time and again. My question to you all is, "Is there a bigger gamble in the investment universe now than sovereign debt?" Governments(worldwide) will tell you on one hand that some arcane investment is nothing but a gamble, but feel no shame in selling more shitty paper to keep their respective houses of cards standing. How ironic.
Paper money is a gamble. I trust that I can go to Kroger's and give them some paper money and they give me food. The food is more valuable than the "paper" and it is only our overall trust in the "paper" and others accepting it as "legal tender" that keeps the gamble going.
As my financial advisor said to my wife when she asked if we should be buying gold as a hedge against the dollar... he said "You'd be better off investing in potatoes. If things get that bad, they'll be worth more."
I understand the comment your wife's financial advisor made, but it was a joke, not fact.
Potatoes aren't worth anything once they are consumed and they are also liable to rot unlike gold. Now if the shit hits the fan, being a potato farmer might be an occupation for the times, but you will not be able to transport them to market and the customer likely won't have anything of worth to you to trade for them.
I would say THE occupation to be in would be a survivalist. Teaching people to survive will be in great demand, though again I don't see customers bellying up with any payment worth writing home about.
And you can thank FDR and Nixon for taking us off the gold standard. Granted, growth would never have happened like it did if we had stayed with gold, but growth needs credit and that is how bubbles get started.
Again, the love of money will be our undoing. (For all you bible thumpers out there: 1 Timothy 6:10)
Too late to go back to the gold standard (what a mess that would create if we tried).
And, yes, survivalist could be a good profession when we experience what Greece is experiencing now. Not sure how long from now that will be, but it seems like it could be our future at some point.
Again, the love of money will be our undoing. (For all you bible thumpers out there: 1 Timothy 6:10)
Too late to go back to the gold standard (what a mess that would create if we tried).
And, yes, survivalist could be a good profession when we experience what Greece is experiencing now. Not sure how long from now that will be, but it seems like it could be our future at some point.
Post a Comment