Vets memorial spokesman on flag-folding fiasco: You’ll never stop us, atheists

posted at 3:49 pm on October 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

One person at one military burial in California objected to the words of the flag-folding ceremony, which includes a reference to “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Result: a coast-to-coast ban on the recital at all 125 cemeteries overseen by the National Cemetery Administration. The families can read it aloud if they want, says the NCA, but no cemetery workers will be allowed to do so.

A spokesman for the California Defense of Veterans Memorials Project says: nuts.

“It’s outrageous,” he says bluntly. “These are decisions that should be made by the families of our deceased veteran comrades and not by Washington bureaucrats — and most certainly not by any narcissistic, disaffected, offended atheist, agnostic, or any other [person] who is upset or offended by the word ‘God’ or a religious symbol which might offend his delicate sensibilities.”

Lloyd vows that even if there are “a hundred-million offended atheists,” he and other American Legionnaires will stand against the ban.

“We will defy this ban, pure and simple,” he states. “If the families ask us to recite the flag-folding ceremony, we will abide by the wishes of the family — not [by the wishes of] some bureaucrat sitting in an air-conditioned office in Washington, DC, or some lawyer wearing a diaper back there whose main mission in life is to protect his own behind instead of standing up for the American people and saying enough is enough.”

Some Michael Newdow type is going to sue the NCA if this persists, which is only going to end up getting Lloyd’s people fired. Exit question: Are we sure we can blame this one on the atheists? God is mentioned after both the 11th and 12th folds, but the first link up top specifies that it was the one after the 11th fold — meant to celebrate Jewish war veterans — that drew the objection.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

God bless him. If more of us were to follow his example, and not become the multicultural-spineless little worms afraid to offend any religion or group with 3 members or more, the more we would be better off.

jojostan on October 27, 2007 at 3:57 PM

God bless him indeed. Christians have rights too. Stand up and fight.

katieanne on October 27, 2007 at 4:04 PM

AP said:

Some Michael Newdow type is going to sue the NCA if this persists, which is only going to end up getting Lloyd’s people fired

Well, this might be true, but it isn’t true because the Newdow type will win the lawsuit.

First of all, religious invocations and prayers at official events like the opening of Congress have been upheld. And this isn’t even an official event; it’s a private funeral on public land. No atheist (or Muslim) has the right to come on public land and stop other people from being religious while he’s around.

Second, anything that happens at a funeral, including this recitation, is done with the approval or at the request of the family. There is no government endorsement of religion, in any way.

Third, the case won’t get past the first day in court because there will be no standing. The complaint here (as one may imagine any future complaint) was from a bystander who happened to be around. He might not even have been invited to the funeral.

Nessuno on October 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Captain’s Quarters has a very good discussion on this topic. There are apparently quite a few different variations of the recital, each of which have different meanings for what the folds stand for. To me, it’s a no-brainer. As far as I’m concerned, I think it should be left first to the final wishes of the fallen soldier and second to the family of the deceased as to whether to have the recital or not and as to which variation of the recital to be used.

Matt Helm on October 27, 2007 at 4:07 PM

I never thought of AP as narcissistic or disaffected. Maybe the spokesman was referring to one of the other 100 million atheists.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 4:08 PM

:salute:

trailortrash on October 27, 2007 at 4:08 PM

Now the National Cemetery Association has made a decision to ban flag-folding recitations by VA employees and volunteers at all 125 national cemeteries — all because of one complaint about a ceremony at Riverside National Cemetery in California that included a reference to God. — from the article

Some Michael Newdow type is going to sue the NCA if this persists, which is only going to end up getting Lloyd’s people fired. —- Allahpundit

In America it’s rule by the majority, not rule of the minority. This is the perfect example of allowing the minority to rule. You can never please everyone so the best you can do is please the majority, that’s why majority rule is so much preferred to minority rule.

If the National Cemetery Association were to have it’s way then all families in the future would be deprived of this long stand ceremony conducted to honor the family and our fallen soldiers. In other words, the national Cemetery Association has chosen to ignore the wishes of the majority in favor of the wishes of the minority, that’s wrong and un-American.

If the National Cemetery Association choose to push this they are on very shaky ground. This is similar to the 9th circuit trying to ban the word God from the Pledge of Allegiance. That caused quit a stir including discussion of splitting the 9th circuit into smaller parts since they are the most overturned court in the land. That decision got overturned as well, if you recall. If this goes to court the National Cemetery Association has hardly a leg to stand on. If they fire anybody over this, they will make themselves liable for damages. I suspect the National Cemetery Association will back down before it comes to that, but if they don’t, I’m pretty sure the court is going to hammer them.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:13 PM

AP Is right that this isnt an athest vs Christian Issue.

This is a government vs the people issue. Atheists didnt ban this recital government did.

Just like the postal debacle the government played PC games to placate one person.

So instead of trashing Atheists I strongly urge that we trashthe government who deserves this more

William Amos on October 27, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Why don’t idiots like this understand the First Amendment gives them a right to be an atheist but not to shield them from religious references?

Drew on October 27, 2007 at 4:18 PM

As far as I’m concerned, I think it should be left first to the final wishes of the fallen soldier and second to the family of the deceased as to whether to have the recital or not and as to which variation of the recital to be used.

Matt Helm on October 27, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Exactly… it should be left to the families.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:19 PM

In America it’s rule by the majority, not rule of the minority. This is the perfect example of allowing the minority to rule.

The majority rule is subject to a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that protect minority rights.

I agree with most of the others that the wishes of the fallen and their families is paramount.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Four Ten score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil culture war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Ordinary1 on October 27, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Whats’ next, ban cross shaped or Star of David shaped grave markers?

All this little crap keeps adding up.

What is the NCA worried about that they would do this? If an authorized family member decides they don’t want to hear the recitation, that’s fine. If someone’s last wishes are not to hear it, fine.

If someone else is bothered by it, stay home.

reaganaut on October 27, 2007 at 4:28 PM

The majority rule is subject to a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that protect minority rights.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Sure, they have the same rights I do, but their rights do not overrule mine.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:30 PM

In America it’s rule by the majority, not rule of the minority.

Not when it comes to constitutional rights.

Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 4:39 PM

it is up to the families and no one else….what the heck is this country going to becone?

robo on October 27, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Not when it comes to constitutional rights.

Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 4:39 PM

That’s just silly, give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:43 PM

That’s just silly, give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority.

The whole point of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment most notably, is to protect individuals from majority rule. There may well be 51% of Americans who support the idea of making Christianity the state religion; they can’t do it, though, because that 49% are protected by the Establishment Clause.

Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 4:52 PM

The point is government shouldnt force anything on anyone.

Its not right to force an atheist to preform a religeous ceremony nor is it right for Atheists to force those that are religeous to give up religeous ceremonies.

The government should make this optional. Not forced on anyone nor any outright ban.

William Amos on October 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM

The whole point of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment most notably, is to protect individuals from majority rule. There may well be 51% of Americans who support the idea of making Christianity the state religion; they can’t do it, though, because that 49% are protected by the Establishment Clause.

Allahpundit on October 27, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Wrong. If such a thing was ever put on the ballot and a majority of Americans voted to make Christianity the state religion then that becomes the law. There is nothing in the Establishment Clause to prevent it. Your thinking of the soviet constitution not the American Constitution.

In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

Constitution of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics
U.S.S.R) Article 52

Amendment I

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.

In the case you propose, it would not be “Congress” making the law, it would be a law by referendum and the Courts should honor it, whether they would or not is a different question.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Well I’m offended by the omission of God’s name. Now who decides who’s offendedness is more important?

ctmom on October 27, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Exit question: Are we sure we can blame this one on the atheists?

No AP, I think is pretty safe to blame it on God. If God would just abdicate is sovereignty and submit to the will of atheists there would be no atheists to be offended by the mention of God.

doriangrey on October 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM

it would be a law by referendum and the Courts should honor it, whether they would or not is a different question.

I don’t know if there is a provision for referendums at a federal level. A state referendum that violated an individual’s Constitutional rights would probably be struck down by a court.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Dude, seriously put the crack pipe down.

Drew on October 27, 2007 at 5:23 PM

I don’t know if there is a provision for referendums at a federal level. A state referendum that violated an individual’s Constitutional rights would probably be struck down by a court.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 5:21 PM

I don’t know either, and it might be struck down by the court. But the original question was… “does the MAJORITY rule” and yes it does.

Keep in mind, if there was overwhelming support for a given thing, EVEN the Constitution can be amended… The Republic is based on majority rule there is no getting around that fact.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:32 PM

America is not a pure democracy and the founders went a long way to structurally resist the will of the people–we couldn’t even directly elect senators until 1916 and winning the most votes doesn’t make you president.

If you want to amend the constitution, you can’t do it with 51%. You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 5:43 PM

If you want to amend the constitution, you can’t do it with 51%. You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and then 3/4 of the state legislatures.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 5:43 PM

Pay attention dedalus. Two-thirds or three-fourths would be a majority would it not?

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Pay attention dedalus. Two-thirds or three-fourths would be a majority would it not?

I can’t argue with you on that point :-)

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 5:52 PM

When I was in the service, we had these things called dog tags. On these tags where printed things like , ssn, gasmask size and religion. I always assumed the mention of religion was so you could get the proper “service” after you got whacked.

Mine tags said “hedonist” for my religion. I wonder what sort of ceremony they have for that.

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 5:52 PM

There may well be 51% of Americans who support the idea of making Christianity the state religion; they can’t do it, though, because that 49% are protected by the Establishment Clause.

Excellent simplification of Constitutional law. What would the founding fathers say about 1% of the population imposing its will on the remaning 99%?

It seems to me that allowing this to occur in these cemetaries is far different from the government requiring it (which is what that 1st amendment was designed to prevent).

I love how the 1st Amendment has morphed into a vehicle to deny religious rights to certain groups, rather than to protect the religious rights of all.

SailorDave on October 27, 2007 at 5:53 PM

After officiating over 50 funerals I can say that in each of the cases there has not been ONE and I mean ONE family that wasn’t concerned about the deceased making it to heaven. It didn’t matter who was involved from heroin overdoses to suicides to accidental death, no matter the situation and how hard the hearts were, not one case wasn’t concerned. So for someone to make a deal over the tradition tells me that it is the foolishness of the young.

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 6:00 PM

Excellent simplification of Constitutional law. What would the founding fathers say about 1% of the population imposing its will on the remaning 99%?

It seems to me that allowing this to occur in these cemetaries is far different from the government requiring it (which is what that 1st amendment was designed to prevent).

I love how the 1st Amendment has morphed into a vehicle to deny religious rights to certain groups, rather than to protect the religious rights of all.

SailorDave on October 27, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Democracy:
Democracy is one of those words that is mostly misused and misunderstood .
Lets look at the definition:
“Demos: mean common people
“kratos”: means rule
so democracy means “ruled by people”
There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,
As a matter of fact though most Islamic countries are fascist they are better examples of pure democracies than the U.S..

Now let me try to explain that. If the vast majority of a population desire their government to impose sharia law and they believe that infidels should be killed or converted there is nothing undemocratic about that, though the infidel might disagree.

The U.S. is not a democracy.
It is a hybrid “constitutional representative federal republic”
This is far from a pure democracy. The U.S. is governed by a constitution of laws not of people.
Early in the history of the U.S. it’s founders agreed on a set of rules that would limit not only the power and discretion of the government ( it’s self and it’s law) but also it’s people and it’s subsequent elected leaders. Why did they do this? Well they knew that absolute power is corrupting and oppressive in any one entities hands. So, they basically spread it out .
Constitutional ( we are ruled by law )
Federation (we are made up of smaller sovereign countries or “states” )
Republic ( we are ruled by consent )
Representative ( we vote for our leaders

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 6:02 PM

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

Does folding our flag in such a ceremony constitute the “free exercise” of religion or the “establishment of religion”?

Certainly the Constitution has already been applied too broadly when you realize that in few of these daily litigious assaults upon our heritage is it a situation of “Congress shall make no law”.

I also cannot determine any “right” to be free of religion justified here as a protection of our individual liberties.

Certainly in this particular instance… if you are at the funeral… you might respect the wishes of the fallen, who gave so much, and suck it up.

You know… if you happen to be an intolerant craven hater of everything that very person gave his/her life to defend.

Perhaps, if you are, you might stop off after the funeral and at the Synagogue of “moonbat rabbi Yitzhak Miller” and demand he cease recitation of the Torah as intolerant for it’s failure to be inclusive of every other religion.

Then require he give every sermon in every other language spoken on Earth… to be appropriately inclusive.

DANEgerus on October 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 6:00 PM

I never once, ever thought that when I went to a funeral, including my own family members.

JiangxiDad on October 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I’m an atheist. I don’t care if you want God in your ceremony. This kind of thing is why I don’t donate to the Freedom from Religion Foundation anymore.

abrown28 on October 27, 2007 at 6:21 PM

I never thought of AP as narcissistic or disaffected.

Disaffected, maybe :) Luv ya, Allah.

mikeyboss on October 27, 2007 at 6:22 PM

“These are decisions that should be made by the families of our deceased veteran comrades

This is the part I agree with 150% and since *rights of the individual are protected, there’s not one bureaucrat legal leg to stand on.

For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.
Karl Marx

*And Tyrant enablers like Marx is why.

Speakup on October 27, 2007 at 6:29 PM

Bush is no where to be seen. Likely admiring the family photos of Laura being fitted in her Hajib.

pat on October 27, 2007 at 6:46 PM

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I never once, ever thought that when I went to a funeral, including my own family members.

JiangxiDad on October 27, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Yeah , ha ha, I bet mjkazee was just projecting his delusions onto others.
Reminds me of the apes perplexed by the obelisk.

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

The majority rule is subject to a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that protect minority rights.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Communism and fascism also protect the rights of a minority, that is, the ruling party, at the sake of the majority! Any petty dictator does the same,, forcing their minority views and wishes upon the majority! ! Honestly, I am getting sick of hearing about the rights of the some minority! When any minority can rule over the majority it is a tyranny! Our nation is about the rights of the individual to be free from government intrusion, to be free to pursue their own God given rights and dreams! To be free to worship, to build. To own property and wealth and to protect it! Or to choose not to! To petition their government and to meet and assemble with whom they please! I realize some of what I say here may sound a little outdated,, using words like tyranny and God given freedoms probably seems a little too much for some. That’s sort of like calling the sun or the air we breath a little old fashioned! Our liberties and freedoms will never be out of style! A thousand years from now property rights and freedom of worship will be just as sacred as they are now, or ever have been! Guns and weapons may change in their functions and styles, but centuries from now the right of individuals to keep and bear them will always be sacred! I salute these Vets! They are real Americans!

JellyToast on October 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM

“These are decisions that should be made by the families of our deceased veteran comrades and not by Washington bureaucrats”

I agree entirely and I’m an atheist.

I would feel differently if they were reciting it during every funeral regardless of the expressed wishes of the fallen soldiers and their families, but that’s entirely different. For example, If a Hindu, Buddhist or atheist soldier specifies so in his or her will, or if the family requests it, the religious portions of the ceremony could be modified slightly as appropriate to suit the circumstances.

It’s ridiculous to ban the ceremony outright; a soldier is not government property. Even if our men and women in uniform do give up certain rights while in the service they still retain their religious freedom, and all of their obligations to the government certainly end after they’ve died.

FloatingRock on October 27, 2007 at 7:18 PM

There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,

Thank you, you beat me to it…

oldleprechaun on October 27, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Salvation came from the Jews.

May God bless all American Legionnaires

Hening on October 27, 2007 at 7:33 PM

When any minority can rule over the majority it is a tyranny! Our nation is about the rights of the individual to be free from government intrusion, to be free to pursue their own God given rights and dreams! To be free to worship, to build. To own property and wealth and to protect it! Or to choose not to! To petition their government and to meet and assemble with whom they please!

JellyToast on October 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM

Exactly… and there is no right to NOT be offended.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 7:42 PM

The Establishment clause says that the USGOV can’t create an official state religion de jure, nor can it sneak one in de facto by granting preference to one religion over another, or over agnosticism, atheism, or anti-theism.

But the Free Exercise clause says that if the deceased’s will, or the executor named therein, calls for these words to be spoken, the government isn’t the one granting the preference. The difference between personal preference and government mandate is as night and day, but some folks can’t seem to grasp it.

The Monster on October 27, 2007 at 7:54 PM

… it was the one after the 11th fold — meant to celebrate Jewish war veterans — that drew the objection.

The Big A

Sweet divide and conquer manuever, Allah. Top shelf.

But I have a hard time picturing some atheist douche like Newdow winning a fight like this one. If and when my family is involved in such an affair, nothing will stop us from having those words read in the ceremony.

You guys need to stick to school board meetings and municipal events where no one in uniform has died.

Jaibones on October 27, 2007 at 8:37 PM

When any minority can rule over the majority it is a tyranny! Our nation is about the rights of the individual to be free from government intrusion, to be free to pursue their own God given rights and dreams! To be free to worship, to build. To own property and wealth and to protect it! Or to choose not to! To petition their government and to meet and assemble with whom they please!

It is only by protecting minority rights that the Bill of Rights is critical. It ensures that your right to worship and other rights you cherish are granted not by the government or by a majority of your fellow citizens, but by your natural rights.

In this case as long as the prayer isn’t being selected by by the government and forced on the family, I don’t see a problem.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 7:03 PM

You lost you’re bet.

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM

There probably are few purer examples of democracy than a lynch mob,

And if a certain loud-mouthed extreme minority of atheists don’t stop pulling these stunts in order to deny us Christians our Constitutionally protected rights to exercise our religion as we please, then they’re going to get a first hand demonstration of that kind of democracy.

Hemp or nylon, Newdow? Pine or oak?

Misha I on October 27, 2007 at 9:57 PM

It is only by protecting minority rights that the Bill of Rights is critical.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Your heart is in the right place but your statement is nevertheless wrong. The Bill of Rights protects everyones rights and the word “minority” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

You seem to be confusing civil right legislation enacted by Congress with Constitutional law. Yes, Congress has given special privileges to certain groups, which in my opinion is anathema to Constitutional principles. Sometimes the courts allows Congress to get away with this and sometimes they don’t. But in either case the Constitution does not concern itself with one group over another, its plain and stated purpose was to secure equal rights for WE THE PEOPLE, that is, ALL citizens. That is equal protection under the law, for everybody who is a citizen.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 10:03 PM

You lost you’re bet.

mjkazee on October 27, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Latecomer and humble student entreats you to explain.

RushBaby on October 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM

This is a no brainer, and the atheists will lose on it. This is not a monument to the ten commandments. This is about a family’s personal choice. The constitution protects the individuals right to recognize god (even on government land) and the ban will quickly go away after a few of these veterans groups do what these guys did.

conservnut on October 27, 2007 at 10:22 PM

You seem to be confusing civil right legislation enacted by Congress with Constitutional law.

Thanks for the reply. I wasn’t using minority to apply to a particular group and I don’t like laws that do. I was using “minority” in the sense of not being in the majority. You are right, the Bill of Rights is talking about individuals and it protects your rights even if a majority of people are opposed to your speech or religion.

dedalus on October 27, 2007 at 10:54 PM

That’s just silly, give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Are you serious? I could literally name thousands.

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

The primary job of the Constitution, and certainly the first ten Amendments, along with Amendments 13-15 and sundry others, is to precisely what you think it doesn’t do.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Seriously?

It really frightens me how little some people understand their government. You could not be more wrong if you tried.

Please – I’m begging – take an undergraduate course in constitutional law. Just one.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:17 PM

What part do you disagree with.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM

Are you serious? I could literally name thousands.

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

The primary job of the Constitution, and certainly the first ten Amendments, along with Amendments 13-15 and sundry others, is to precisely what you think it doesn’t do.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Professor, I’ve already made the point that address’s all of those items and you must have missed it.

To put the whole thing back into context, I made the statement that the majority rules.

Allah comes back saying the majority doesn’t matter when it comes to Constitutional rights. He is correct and you are correct to a point, but ultimately it’s still the majority that rules.

If enough people are willing to come together to push a certain idea, the Constitution itself can be changed. I’m not saying its a good idea, I’m merely saying that the majority does in fact rule, that is the way the Republic is set up.

Look to the gay marriage debate for an example. Out of the blue gays came forward one day and said they believed they had a right to get married. In all of recorded history no one had ever heard of such a “right.” But they pushed it and finally the majority that was against it actually changed their Constitutions on a state by state basis. I think there are over a dozen state that currently have language in their Constitutions that restrict marriage to one man and one woman. There is talk of doing it on the federal level.

So you see…. the majority does in fact rule. Simply claiming to have a particular right doesn’t mean you have it unless the majority agrees. That’s the way our country works.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM

During the 1920’s and 30’s kidnapping in America was a new crime and had become widespread. The police seemed to be able to do little to stop it. Eventually the people got fed up and began to take matters into their own hands. Riots had popped up in a few states. I do not remember the state,, you could google this if you wanted,, a mob broke into a jail and hung a couple guys arrested for a particularly gruesome kidnapping/murder. The governor of that state defied anyone to go after the mob, swearing he would pardon the vigilante’s if he had to. After a number of months guess what happened?? Kidnapping disappeared in America and didn’t surface again until the 1950’s. The kidnappers feared the people as much as they did the police! This is one example of people acting to protect themselves when the government fails to. Now,, I do not advocate a mob rule,, but the fabric of the nation then was much more Christian than it is today, and I think the people at the time were able to temper their anger with justice. There is a difference between a “mob rule” and a people setting things right, just as there is a difference between violence and self defense.
There is also a difference between the rights of the individual vs the tyranny of one, or of a minority. When a government entity steps in between a private prayer and the god the person is praying to and says “Stop, you cannot pray here”, the government entity is putting itself above God. The entity is saying “You will not talk to God” “You will not come to God” We have gotten use to suits telling us what our rights are and what the constitution says. The constitution was written for the average farmer of 1776. It is not a difficult document to understand. It was written so the PEOPLE would know their rights. We have come to this place in America where we look at our constitution as something so hard and difficult to understand that only people wearing black robes hiding themselves in chambers deep inside a marble building for weeks on end can decipher its hidden meanings!

JellyToast on October 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

An atheist looks for God the same way a thief looks for a cop.

christophercube on October 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Mine tags said “hedonist” for my religion. I wonder what sort of ceremony they have for that.

TheSitRep on October 27, 2007 at 5:52 PM

One where everybody but the deceased has a lot of fun. ;-D

angryoldfatman on October 28, 2007 at 12:24 AM

a mob broke into a jail and hung a couple guys arrested for a particularly gruesome kidnapping/murder

It sounds like governor saw the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments as optional. Even today, with jury trials some people are being cleared via DNA. Its usually easy to know that a crime is heinous but harder to ascertain guilt.

dedalus on October 28, 2007 at 12:25 AM

a mob broke into a jail and hung a couple guys arrested for a particularly gruesome kidnapping/murder

I see where al-Maliki has promised to do more to protect the 3% of Iraqi’s who are Christian, although maybe 50% of those have already left. With the chaos in Iraq Sunni’s, Shi’ite’s and Kurds all look to militias of their own ethnic makeup to protect them. If Iraq is going to function as a constitutional democracy, one indicator will be whether the 3% of Christians are safe from militias serving as judge, jury and executioner.

dedalus on October 28, 2007 at 1:19 AM

In a Republic such as ours, the majority rules, this fact is so basic to our concept of government that I was surprised that anyone challenged it, I thought I was only stating the obvious. There is nothing more fundamental to our system of government than majority rule. Some here don’t seem to know this, clearly our schools of liberal indoctrination have done far more damage than I thought.

In a Republic the minority is never ultimately in charge, that’s anathema to our system of government and contrary to the definition of republic, or democracy for that matter.

I think its common in collages and universities these days to teach that the Constitution was intended to protect “minority” rights, but that’s really a misrepresentation of the Constitution’s intent and function. Presenting the Constitution in this light works to the Lefts advantage because it creates the mind-set that the Constitution divides people into groups… minority vs. majority. This is just more leftist spin to divide people against each other, which is of course the Left’s standard operating procedure. In reality the Constitution protects “individual” rights without regard to your minority or majority status.

The individual’s rights are protected against any person or group who attempts to obstruct or deny your rights. It makes no difference if you are part of a minority or a majority or black or white or anything else, you only have to be a citizen to enjoy full rights under the Constitution.

There is another advantage for the Left in portraying the Constitution’s intend as protecting minority rights. It gives the false impression that the rights of the minority are somehow more sacred or superior to the rights of the majority. That is completely false and unfounded in Constitutional law.

Professor, I ask Allah to give me an example in Constitutional law where the minority is allowed to override the rights of the majority. You responded to that request too and the first item you offered as an example, was this:

Every time someone expresses themselves in a way that the majority would like to silence, the minority is protected by the Constitution. When the KKK marches in your town is rather obviously a minority protected against a majority.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

In reality this is not an example of the minority overruling the majority. It is also not an example of minority rule instead of the majority. While the majority of townspeople may be against the KKK’s march, it is nevertheless the supermajority of Americans that have accepted the First Amendment as the law of the land and it is actually that supermajority that should be credited for upholding the KKK’s right to march. This is still a majority in control, because the vast majority of Citizens have acceded to the First Amendments authority to protect free speech. Just as the KKK can march, so can the YAF, it’s the majority that protects each of their rights.

Next you speak of “Racial discrimination and Affirmative action” as being examples of the minority overriding the rights of the majority.

Racial discrimination. Affirmative action. Hello? If every white person in America decides to discriminate against a minority, the constitution will ensure the rights of that minority “override the rights of the majority.” Read the 14th Amendment.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Firstly, if every white person in America wanted to bring back segregation, that would probably compose a supermajority large enough to change the Constitution and get it done. Once the Constitution is changed, not even the Supreme Court has anything to say about it. They have no power to declare a part the Constitution as un-Constitutional.

Furthermore, nothing in your comment provides an example of the minority overriding the rights of the majority within Constitutional law. Racial discrimination and Affirmative action laws are examples of civil rights legislation passed by Congress. While these laws were found Constitutional by the courts they are examples of statutory law and not “Constitutional law.” The debate at hand is about Constitutional Law, not statutory law.

Congress and the courts have been all over the map concerning Racial discrimination and Affirmative action laws. Anyone would need a team of Philadelphia lawyers to figure it all out. But if you still think they represent examples of minority rule, you might want to think again because the Supreme Court of late has dealt several mighty blows to the old standards of, especially Affirmative action. The court has started to realize theses laws are responsible for what has been called reverse discrimination, thus so called affirmative action seems to be on it’s way out. The MAJORITY of the court will decide that by the way.

Lastly on this point, it was a majority of congressmen, who were elected by the majority of voters, that are suppose to be representing the will of the people, that put these laws into effect. Once again, it’s very much the majority in control.

You also ask that I read the 14th Amendment and mentioned the Bill of Rights along with other Constitutional amendments. You suggested this reading would lend support to your view the Constitution was intended to protect “minority” rights. Being that you hold that view, I feel quite confident that I’ve read those amendments a few more time than you have. As I’ve stated prior, the word “minority” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, whenever a right is bestowed it is usually bestowed on “the people” or “any person” but never upon the “minority.”

Alright, so what about our friend that made the complaint to the National Cemetery Administration. Exactly what right was he exercising ? Could he be claiming his religious freedoms were trampled because the religious ceremony included beliefs that were not his own ? The simple solution for that is of course to simply walk away. He was there voluntarily as far as we know. If he was there in some official capacity, then he’s in the wrong business. Could a porn star refuse to “act” because it’s against their religion? I think not, any “star” that made such a claim would be fired, there are certain expectations that come with every job.

But whatever the complaint was, it was probably this misconception that the rights of the minority are somehow superior to the rights of others that drove the National Cemetery Administration to take the action it did. That action was wrong, minority or not, your rights are no more important than anyone else’s. This is why this erroneous idea that the Constitution protects minority rights is so disruptive and misguided, the Constitution protects everyone’s rights, not just the minority.

This isn’t a joust Professor, I just wanted to explain further.

Maxx on October 28, 2007 at 8:04 PM