South Carolina Christians Scream "PREJUDICE!!!"

[American Infidel]

OK. Now how about the other bit I posted, concerning the obligation of a person working for the government to keep his private beliefs and opinions out of his job? If I were a minimum-wage drone working for McDonald's, I could get fired for telling a fat customer to go on a fucking diet. You do not have full freedom of speech when you're on the job.

Based on the information provided in the OP, I concluded that he made the money contribution and the statement of opinion as a private citizen. The officiality of the statement seems unclear, but the funds for the plates clearly came from Bauer as a private citizen.
Bauer is Lt. Gov. so I don't know if he ever gets "off the clock" like a lesser drone. If not; I wouldn't support restricting his speech because the nature of his job deprives him of an unofficial opportunity.
Besides, you only get to know people by what they say and do. If nobody in government said what they believed and how they thought, you wouldn't know who to vote for or against.

Here's a link to the case.http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ ... 3-1500.pdf

[Ziggy Stardust]

Besides, you only get to know people by what they say and do. If nobody in government said what they believed and how they thought, you wouldn't know who to vote for or against.

If you follow this thought to its logical conclusion, you do realize it contradicts your entire argument, right? As you say, you use what government officials say and do as a means of gauging their character for the express purpose of choosing the candidate you want to vote for. Therefore, anything a government officials says or does is inseperable from his position as a government official. So, by your own admission, Bauer's actions and words on this issue ARE relevant to his position as Lieutenant Governor, and are thus a violation of the Establishment Clause, etc. etc.

[American Infidel]

Because those are taught in a larger context and not with the object of advancing religion which is a constitutional no-no. In any case, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

This shows the importance of context in determining constitutionality.

Which is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

Wrong. The government issues permits to people protesting who use public land and this does not constitute an endorsement. This is a directly comparable situation to the tags drivers are issued from the government. The act of issuing the tag is not an endorsement in itself.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

Because in a display showing other icons and symbols of law, no one religious interest is being advanced. Once again, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

Wrong. It is directly relevant as the commandments are by nature overtly Christian in nature and yet still constitutional, despite being on public property.

Which is an utter red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

You missed/ignored the point I was making about public property and constitutionality and substituted an applicable response with irrelevant repetition.

Despite your inane twaddle on the matter, nothing whatsoever —no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

Your position as a faceless internet nobody gives this such irresistable authority.

We have established no such thing. You wish to believe there is an equation between license plates and public spaces but this comparison simply is not valid as a few court decisions and the recent backdown of Florida's legislature over First Amendment conflict issues to their own proposed Christian license plate measure demonstrates.

I advise you to re-read the thread. If the state produces and issues the tag to you without selling it, it is state property. Florida's backing down does not demonstrate the plate's constitutionality, only the level of commitment of the measure's advocates.

Wrong. There is a considerable difference between a content-neutral public display and an official state document being issued with a clear religious symbol and one favouring a particular sect.

The Ten Commandments are not "content-neutral". The state owns the land it is on and the state owns your car tag. No difference there. Wrong each way.

[Justforfun000]

Besides, you only get to know people by what they say and do. If nobody in government said what they believed and how they thought, you wouldn't know who to vote for or against.

This actually sparks an interesting debate subject to me..I've wondered before what is the right way to determine what is fair in relation to personal beliefs and public service representing the people.

On the one hand for example, it's not reasonable to expect someone who has personal religious beliefs on subjects like sexual morality to personally practice or endorse conflicting ethics like abortion or promiscuity, but yet they should never be able to wield their beliefs with their personal public authority as a reason for action against differing morals either.

This is the biggest flaw of the religious right. They really believe that their morals are the ONLY morals, and ultimately everyone should agree and follow them. This leads to this huge conflict of interest when public officials drag their private religious beliefs into the political arena.

I guess the only fair thing we can expect is to have all proposals, ideas, amendments, laws and so forth be brought forward on an argument of merit only. If they cannot be reasonably justified or defended without resorting to a priori arguments, then they should be discarded as unreasonable.

[American Infidel]

Besides, you only get to know people by what they say and do. If nobody in government said what they believed and how they thought, you wouldn't know who to vote for or against.

If you follow this thought to its logical conclusion, you do realize it contradicts your entire argument, right? As you say, you use what government officials say and do as a means of gauging their character for the express purpose of choosing the candidate you want to vote for. Therefore, anything a government officials says or does is inseperable from his position as a government official. So, by your own admission, Bauer's actions and words on this issue ARE relevant to his position as Lieutenant Governor, and are thus a violation of the Establishment Clause, etc. etc.

I already noted the importance of distinguishing a person's actions in a private capacity from professional capacity. My side note to DW doesn't contradict that.

[Patrick Degan]

Because those are taught in a larger context and not with the object of advancing religion which is a constitutional no-no. In any case, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

This shows the importance of context in determining constitutionality.

Which has exactly jack and shit to do with the license plate issue.

Which is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

Wrong. The government issues permits to people protesting who use public land and this does not constitute an endorsement. This is a directly comparable situation to the tags drivers are issued from the government. The act of issuing the tag is not an endorsement in itself.

Repetition does not support your argument. Try again.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

Because in a display showing other icons and symbols of law, no one religious interest is being advanced. Once again, this is a red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

Wrong. It is directly relevant as the commandments are by nature overtly Christian in nature and yet still constitutional, despite being on public property.

In a word, bullshit. You continue to make a false equation between license plates carrying a Christian symbol and a public display which is crafted to be content-neutral by not being exclusively Judaeo-Christian.

Which is an utter red herring to the license plate issue since that involves a state agency clearly biasing its operations in favour of a religious message.

You missed/ignored the point I was making about public property and constitutionality and substituted an applicable response with irrelevant repetition.

Laughable coming from the man who thinks making the exact same argument ad-infinitum refutes all objections.

Despite your inane twaddle on the matter, nothing whatsoever —no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

Your position as a faceless internet nobody gives this such irresistable authority.

Funny how you don't actually refute anything with your babble.

We have established no such thing. You wish to believe there is an equation between license plates and public spaces but this comparison simply is not valid as a few court decisions and the recent backdown of Florida's legislature over First Amendment conflict issues to their own proposed Christian license plate measure demonstrates.

I advise you to re-read the thread. If the state produces and issues the tag to you without selling it, it is state property. Florida's backing down does not demonstrate the plate's constitutionality, only the level of commitment of the measure's advocates.

Bullshit. Utter, absolute bullshit. The constitutionality issue is EXACTLY the reason Florida backed down from its proposed measure, you dishonest little fuck.

Wrong. There is a considerable difference between a content-neutral public display and an official state document being issued with a clear religious symbol and one favouring a particular sect.

The Ten Commandments are not "content-neutral". The state owns the land it is on and the state owns your car tag. No difference there. Wrong each way.

The Ten Commandments are content-neutral when included in a general display of other religious and historical icons which do not promote one religion over another or religion over irreligion, shitwit. Right both ways.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Please, allow me to elaborate.

The public schools have been teaching religious messages and symbols in the context of instruction for years and they still do. No establishment conflict.

That's because they only 'teach religion' in that they show the effects it has had on cultures, past and present. They do not forward any one religion over another and do not restrict or discriminate on the basis of religion. This license-plate issue does the exact opposite.

Public areas like parks and streets are used to demonstrate(protesting) all manner of views including those of religious organizations and religous individuals. All of which have to and can get a government issued permit. Again no conflict.

So long as the government agencies show no favouritism or discrimination on the basis of religion. A bunch of Muslims who want to hold a protest are constitutionally guaranteed equal opportunity to any group of Christians who want to hold a protest. The license plates are heavily slanted towards Christian interests, funded by a government official, and heavily restricted towards non-Christian faiths or a lack of faith. Once again, not a valid comparison.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the second most recognizable Christian icon that I can think of, The Ten Commandments; cannot be mandated to be displayed in Kentucky as a religious endorsement. It also ruled that the Commandment display on public property in Texas is allowed as part of a display illustrating the origins of American law. The Ten Commandments is still a very overtly religious icon but it was allowed in this context. I believe there hasn't been any following ruling which overturns this.

So long as it is in a display showing no favouritism or discrimination against other religions or lack thereof, and looking at it from a historical, rather than proselytizing point of view. Again, not a valid comparison.

Well, so what? I'll tell you.
This decision proves that the wall erected by the separation clause is not absolute and exceptions can be and are made for very religious icons like the commandments on public property.

Which has nothing to do with the license plate issue, as already demonstrated. Religious icons are allowed on government owned, taxpayer funded property so long as they DO NOT ADVANCE OR FAVOUR ANY RELIGION. The license plates do the exact opposite of this you twit.

Wrong. The government issues permits to people protesting who use public land and this does not constitute an endorsement. This is a directly comparable situation to the tags drivers are issued from the government. The act of issuing the tag is not an endorsement in itself.

See above. When the restrictions and regulations on the tags overtly support one religion over another, it is an endorsement. When a government official pays the required fee for one religion to be represented and not another, and uses his position of influence to advertise this fact, it is an endorsement.

Wrong. It is directly relevant as the commandments are by nature overtly Christian in nature and yet still constitutional, despite being on public property.

See above, it is a display showing the historical origins of law, not an advancement of religion. The plates are an advancement of religion, and more specifically a Christian religion over others.

[General Zod]

I already noted the importance of distinguishing a person's actions in a private capacity from professional capacity. My side note to DW doesn't contradict that.

Either you're really fucking stupid or you're intentionally being dishonest. Public officials are exactly that, public. Anything they do in their private life can and will affect their re-election chances or otherwise affect their image as a whole, being representatives of their constituents this is in fact important, and means they do not have the same expectations of a separate private and professional life that joe blow citizen does. Most politicians recognize this fact, and it's precisely why some of them decline certain offices or refuse to re-run, because of the high visibility and scrutiny involved.

[Darth Wong]

OK. Now how about the other bit I posted, concerning the obligation of a person working for the government to keep his private beliefs and opinions out of his job? If I were a minimum-wage drone working for McDonald's, I could get fired for telling a fat customer to go on a fucking diet. You do not have full freedom of speech when you're on the job.

Based on the information provided in the OP, I concluded that he made the money contribution and the statement of opinion as a private citizen.

Bullshit. It was a press conference. This wasn't some comment to his cousin that was overheard at a backyard barbecue.

[American Infidel]

Bullshit. It was a press conference. This wasn't some comment to his cousin that was overheard at a backyard barbecue.

The original post doesn't state that Bauer said that in a press conference, so I went the other way on it because of the private money.

Bullshit. Utter, absolute bullshit. The constitutionality issue is EXACTLY the reason Florida backed down from its proposed measure, you dishonest little fuck.

Yet another profane and vitriolic response to something you were too stupid to understand. The failure of a measure to go to court doesn't DEMONSTRATE it's unconstitutionality because the courts are the body that find and define constitutionality.
The rest of your post is nothing more than the same repetitive bullshit opinion you've been peddling as fact over the entire thread. We are not going to agree and I'm not going to waste any more of my time posting on this thread.

Public officials are exactly that, public. Anything they do in their private life can and will affect their re-election chances or otherwise affect their image as a whole, being representatives of their constituents this is in fact important, and means they do not have the same expectations of a separate private and professional life that joe blow citizen does. Most politicians recognize this fact, and it's precisely why some of them decline certain offices or refuse to re-run, because of the high visibility and scrutiny involved.

Yes; you are right. They don't have the same expectation of privacy but they should have the privilege of distinguishing thier own speech and advocacy from that of thier constituents.

[General Zod]

Yes; you are right. They don't have the same expectation of privacy but they should have the privilege of distinguishing thier own speech and advocacy from that of thier constituents.

Once again, wrong. If a representative doesn't advocate the beliefs of constituents he's appealing to for a vote, why would they vote for him in the first place? Finding out that your representative doesn't hold the beliefs he advocated during election after you get him in office is a slap in the face and a good way to make sure you never get elected again if not worse.

Need I remind you of the sheer amount of Republican neo-cons who advocate discriminatory laws against homosexuals but have secret gay lovers on the side?

[American Infidel]

Once again, wrong. If a representative doesn't advocate the beliefs of constituents he's appealing to for a vote, why would they vote for him in the first place? Finding out that your representative doesn't hold the beliefs he advocated during election after you get him in office is a slap in the face and a good way to make sure you never get elected again if not worse.

Voting for the constituent agenda in the senate or congress would be advocating for the voters. Donating personal money to an activist group and voting in a public election is representation of yourself. I don't see the incongruence.

Need I remind you of the sheer amount of Republican neo-cons who advocate discriminatory laws against homosexuals but have secret gay lovers on the side?

I can think of two. One of whom was a RINO. How many are there?

[Patrick Degan]

Bullshit. Utter, absolute bullshit. The constitutionality issue is EXACTLY the reason Florida backed down from its proposed measure, you dishonest little fuck.

Yet another profane and vitriolic response to something you were too stupid to understand. The failure of a measure to go to court doesn't DEMONSTRATE it's unconstitutionality because the courts are the body that find and define constitutionality.

No, fuckwit. The measure didn't even make it past debate in the Florida house because of the First Amendment conflict issue. And you don't like the vitriol here? Boo hoo. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the reactor core, then.

The rest of your post is nothing more than the same repetitive bullshit opinion you've been peddling as fact over the entire thread.

Mr. Black Pot, meet Mr. Black Kettle. And since you don't even attempt to answer any of the arguments contradicting you with nothing but a Wall of Ignorance or handwaving, we can see just how full of bullshit you really are.

We are not going to agree and I'm not going to waste any more of my time posting on this thread.

Ah, the last shriek on the retreat. Predictably cowardly.

Public officials are exactly that, public. Anything they do in their private life can and will affect their re-election chances or otherwise affect their image as a whole, being representatives of their constituents this is in fact important, and means they do not have the same expectations of a separate private and professional life that joe blow citizen does. Most politicians recognize this fact, and it's precisely why some of them decline certain offices or refuse to re-run, because of the high visibility and scrutiny involved.

Yes; you are right. They don't have the same expectation of privacy but they should have the privilege of distinguishing thier own speech and advocacy from that of thier constituents.

Except this isn't a matter of an elected official's own private speech but said official deciding on policy which violates constitutional law, which is among the many points you dishonestly ignore in this thread.

[American Infidel]

1. Way to ignore the role of the courts. Fucktard.
2. My responses to your bullshit are further up in the thread. Go find them.
3. Responding to you isn't worth the time and effort. Cowardly? Coming from a guy like you, that's rich.
4. I've addressed those points, you are just too fucking stupid to get it. Have a nice day, idiot.

[Edi]

1. Way to ignore the role of the courts. Fucktard.
2. My responses to your bullshit are further up in the thread. Go find them.
3. Responding to you isn't worth the time and effort. Cowardly? Coming from a guy like you, that's rich.
4. I've addressed those points, you are just too fucking stupid to get it. Have a nice day, idiot.

Look asshat, take your wall of ignorance bullshit, set it on fire and shove it up your arse.

1) The role of the courts is to determine constitutionality of laws in case a conflict needing the resolution of courts arises. It was noticed in the Florida legislature that the measure they were considering would go up in front of the courts and based on precedent in similar cases would be ruled unconstitutional. They sure as hell did not ignore the role of the courts, they just decided not to waste taxpayer money passing an unconstitutional measure and then fighting over it in court.

2) Your responses so far have been utter bullshit and you have ignored all rebuttals with a broken record wall of ignorance tactic. Fuck off.

3) Keep on trolling, asshole. No doubt you'll get this thread in the Hall of Shame in short order. I predict that it won't take too long before you get yourself a ban poll if you keep this shit up.

4) You have never addressed the arguments against your position. Somebody must have put a little too much grandeur into your delusions.

[Patrick Degan]

1. Way to ignore the role of the courts. Fucktard.

Way to ignore the actual facts of the matter in Florida, asswipe. I'm not responsible for your inability to do your own fucking homework.

2. My responses to your bullshit are further up in the thread. Go find them.

You mean where you simply ignore arguments wholesale and keep repeating the same bullshit ad-infinitum. How comical.

3. Responding to you isn't worth the time and effort. Cowardly? Coming from a guy like you, that's rich.

Wrong answer, asshole. You are not getting away with a dodge like that one around here. Either start answering substantively or fuck off.

4. I've addressed those points, you are just too fucking stupid to get it. Have a nice day, idiot.

Often have these delusions of adequacy, do you?

[Ender]

I gotta wonder if this isn't an attempt to get a Separation case put before a court that they feel they have stacked in their favor, like North Dakota tried to do with their extra harsh anti-abortion law.

[Darth Wong]

The original post doesn't state that Bauer said that in a press conference, so I went the other way on it because of the private money.

Do his statements sound to you like they were overheard snippets of private conversations? He was addressing reporters directly.

Yet another profane and vitriolic ...

This isn't Sunday School. Profanity is allowed here, and whining about it is not. If you can't stand profanity, feel free to run away and go to one of the Internet's many Miss Manners forums.

[Darth Wong]

You know, it occurs to me that most people tend to think that anything which is reasonable for a private citizen must be reasonable for a civil servant. But that's not really how it works; when you become a public servant, you gain authority but you lose some of your freedoms. You become saddled with new requirements which do not apply to everyone else; people see how this is true for soldiers, but they don't seem to see it with politicians.

Politicians should be forced to stay away from anything which bears even the appearance of impropriety or the possibility of a conflict of interest. Instead, we have people treating it like a criminal trial and declaring that the politician deserves the benefit of the doubt. Why?

[American Infidel]

The original post doesn't state that Bauer said that in a press conference, so I went the other way on it because of the private money.

Do his statements sound to you like they were overheard snippets of private conversations? He was addressing reporters directly.

Not really no. You are right, he was.

This isn't Sunday School. Profanity is allowed here, and whining about it is not. If you can't stand profanity, feel free to run away and go to one of the Internet's many Miss Manners forums.

I wasn't whining about his using profanity and vitriol. I use it and have no problem with it. He was using both as a substitute for a sensible rebuke, which he failed to come up with.

You are a scientist. If you wanted to see if one phenomenon in nature/whatever is caused by something else, you would conduct an experiment to prove or disprove it. Right? Without the experiment you only have an idea that needs to be tested.
The courts are the experiment and if a measure doesn't go to court, it's constitutionality hasn't been "demonstrated".

[Darth Wong]

You are a scientist. If you wanted to see if one phenomenon in nature/whatever is caused by something else, you would conduct an experiment to prove or disprove it. Right? Without the experiment you only have an idea that needs to be tested.
The courts are the experiment and if a measure doesn't go to court, it's constitutionality hasn't been "demonstrated".

I'm an engineer actually, but I should still point out to you that the courts are not analogous to a scientific experiment in any way. Science tests things against objective reality, not 9 highly placed opinions.

[American Infidel]

You are a scientist. If you wanted to see if one phenomenon in nature/whatever is caused by something else, you would conduct an experiment to prove or disprove it. Right? Without the experiment you only have an idea that needs to be tested.
The courts are the experiment and if a measure doesn't go to court, it's constitutionality hasn't been "demonstrated".

I'm an engineer actually, but I should still point out to you that the courts are not analogous to a scientific experiment in any way. Science tests things against objective reality, not 9 highly placed opinions.

Sorry.
Even though tests of constitutionality have a subjective element, I think the comparison still works for what I was trying to say.

[Darth Wong]

You are a scientist. If you wanted to see if one phenomenon in nature/whatever is caused by something else, you would conduct an experiment to prove or disprove it. Right? Without the experiment you only have an idea that needs to be tested.
The courts are the experiment and if a measure doesn't go to court, it's constitutionality hasn't been "demonstrated".

I'm an engineer actually, but I should still point out to you that the courts are not analogous to a scientific experiment in any way. Science tests things against objective reality, not 9 highly placed opinions.

Sorry.
Even though tests of constitutionality have a subjective element, I think the comparison still works for what I was trying to say.

Uh, no it doesn't. The whole point of a scientific experiment is to generate objective data. All this tests is that 9 particular people (several of them hand-picked by the sitting president for their ideological temperaments) have a certain opinion. Why do you think I brought up the Dred Scott example? Did that "experiment" prove that black people have no constitutional rights?

[Patrick Degan]

This isn't Sunday School. Profanity is allowed here, and whining about it is not. If you can't stand profanity, feel free to run away and go to one of the Internet's many Miss Manners forums.

I wasn't whining about his using profanity and vitriol. I use it and have no problem with it. He was using both as a substitute for a sensible rebuke, which he failed to come up with.

Lie. You simply ignored entirely the fact that Florida's legislature dropped it's "I Believe" license plate measure over concerns of a First Amendment conflict, then tried covering it up with a red herring over their not taking it to court which they were nowhere close to doing, since they didn't even pass the measure in the first fucking place. And now you think you get to play the victim here?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You are a scientist. If you wanted to see if one phenomenon in nature/whatever is caused by something else, you would conduct an experiment to prove or disprove it. Right? Without the experiment you only have an idea that needs to be tested.
The courts are the experiment and if a measure doesn't go to court, it's constitutionality hasn't been "demonstrated".

I'm an engineer actually, but I should still point out to you that the courts are not analogous to a scientific experiment in any way. Science tests things against objective reality, not 9 highly placed opinions.

Sorry.
Even though tests of constitutionality have a subjective element, I think the comparison still works for what I was trying to say.

No. No it does not. I am a scientist, as opposed to an engineer, and if something violates the laws of physics, one does not waste money trying to test it, one does not try to test whether or not a perpetual motion machine works, for example.

One would not even try to synthesize a non-racemic mixture of amino acids without using enzymes.

And no one tests Lamarck or tries to find empirical support of Lysenko's silly ideas.

The constitutionality of measures like that have been tested over and over again. They are clear violation of the law, and it does not take a court to see it. Just like it does not take going to peer review to tell us that rats do not inherit shortened tails from their amputated parents. You can determine whether or not the idea has merit by appealing to previous tests, unless you have some reason to think that the prior tests were inconclusive.