The Catholic Church's influences on civil libe...

Originally posted by lucifershammer

If a body is formed to protect the right against discrimination of African-Americans, you don't expect it to be the first to jump to the defence of Native Americans. If a body is formed for rape counselling, you don't expect it to jump to do anti-bullying campaigns.

No, but I also wouldn't expect those groups to make this claim:

"When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts."


Is it lying when it makes this claim?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, but I also wouldn't expect those groups to make this claim:

"When the religious freedom rights of [b]any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts."


Is it lying when it makes this claim?[/b]

Why would you think it's lying?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why would you think it's lying?

Because it is saying something that isn't true. It is misrepresenting itself.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Because it is saying something that isn't true. It is misrepresenting itself.

Thanks for defining "lying". But that's not my question.

What specific instance do you have in mind where the religious freedom right of an American has been threatened but the Catholic League has not been ready to fight for justice in the courts?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks for defining "lying". But that's not my question.

What specific instance do you have in mind where the religious freedom right of an American has been threatened but the Catholic League has not been ready to fight for justice in the courts?

The Pledge of Allegiance case, for example. Children have a religious freedom right to not have their public school endorse a religious ritual, such as pledging allegiance to a nation under God.

If the Catholic League was ready to fight for justice, they would have litigated on behalf of those who wanted the pledge done away with, because it was those people whose religious freedom rights were being infringed. But they were not ready to do that.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Pledge of Allegiance case, for example. Children have a religious freedom right to not have their public school endorse a religious ritual, such as pledging allegiance to a nation under God.

If the Catholic League was ready to fight for justice, they would have litigated on behalf of those who wanted the pledge done away with, because it was ...[text shortened]... people whose religious freedom rights were being infringed. But they were not ready to do that.

no1 is the expert here, but I think the Pledge of Allegiance case was argued (by the liberal side) on the basis of Separation of Church and State - not freedom of religion.

The freedom to exercise one's religion does not mean one can prevent others from exercising theirs. Children who do not wish to say the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the word "God" in it should not be forced to; but neither should children who do wish to say it be prevented from doing so.

You've completely misread the case.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1 is the expert here, but I think the Pledge of Allegiance case was argued (by the liberal side) on the basis of Separation of Church and State - [b]not freedom of religion.

The freedom to exercise one's religion does not mean one can prevent others from exercising theirs. Children who do not wish to say the Pledge of Allegiance because it h ...[text shortened]... ildren who do wish to say it be prevented from doing so.

You've completely misread the case.[/b]

I understand the case very well. You simply don't understand the issue.

There is only one clause in the U.S. Constitution that speaks to the issue - the Establishment Clause. Some refer to it as separation of church and state, some as freedom from religion. The Free Exercise clause is immaterial to the case. Perhaps your confusion is that you don't acknowledge that the Establishment Clause speaks to religious freedom rights just as much as the Free Exercise clause does.

The freedom to exercise one's religion does not mean one can prevent others from exercising theirs.

This is irrelevant to the case at hand, as I'm quite sure no1 will affirm. Prohibiting a public school from endorsing a religious rite does not constitute preventing anybody from exercising his religion. The public school itself has no rights to exercise of religion, and thus its rights are not being violated by curtailing the religious rituals that it may endorse. Nobody is aiming to prevent those students who wish to say it from saying it; the aim and effect is to not have the public school endorse it.

Where would the Catholic League stand on the issue if the pledge swore allegiance to one nation under Satan, or perhaps one nation against the Pope? Would they still be for it? Do you think the school could constitutionally endorse such a pledge, while those Catholics who don't want to say it don't have to? If the League wouldn't be in favor of that, wouldn't fight for that, while they will fight for the current pledge, then that betrays their deceitful position of claiming to be in favor of all Americans' religous rights. They are only defenders of Catholics' rights, and those only to the extent that such defense serves the Church.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I understand the case very well. You simply don't understand the issue.

There is only one clause in the U.S. Constitution that speaks to the issue - the Establishment Clause. Some refer to it as separation of church and state, some as freedom from religion. The Free Exercise clause is immaterial to the case.

[b]The freedom to exercise one' ...[text shortened]... ers of Catholics' rights, and those only to the extent that such defense serves the Church.[/b]

There is only one clause in the U.S. Constitution that speaks to the issue - the Establishment Clause. Some refer to it as separation of church and state, some as freedom from religion. The Free Exercise clause is immaterial to the case.

Here's the entire First Amendment:

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.

The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses (and I'm using clause in the grammatical sense here - it might be the same as the legal sense in this case)* are indeed different. It is the latter the League is talking about.

If the League wouldn't be in favor of that, wouldn't fight for that, while they will fight for the current pledge, then that betrays their deceitful position of claiming to be in favor of all Americans' religous rights.

The League has never said that all students should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. If you follow the specific litigation initiated by the League, it deals with districts where students are banned from saying the Pledge.

---
* If not, then the Establishment "Clause" covers the freedom of press and freedom to assemble peacefully as well!

Originally posted by lucifershammer


The League has never said that all students should be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

It doesn't need to. It suffices for the League to say that public schools may endorse the pledge in order for the League to be against religious freedom rights. The Constitution prohibits such endorsement. The school need not force anybody to say it in order for its policy to be unconstitutional. Simply establishing it as the official pledge is a violation.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Would the League come the defense of students who were banned by a public school from swearing an oath against the Pope?

Depends on the situation. If it is primarily a legitimate expression of religion, then presumably yes. If it is primarily a means to inciting religious hatred, then presumably no.

In any case, you cannot accuse the Catholic League of "lying" for something it may or may not do in a hypothetical situation. You asserted that it was misrepresenting itself - do you have any concrete evidence for this assertion?

Originally posted by lucifershammer


The Establishment and Free Exercise clauses (and I'm using clause in the grammatical sense here - it might be the same as the legal sense in this case)* are indeed different. It is the latter the League is talking about.

You're just making things up now. The League claims to be an advocate of only the Free Exercise clause and not the Establishment Clause? Are you saying the League wouldn't have a fit if Congress passed a law making Lutheranism the national religion? Give me a break.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Depends on the situation. If it is primarily a legitimate expression of religion, then presumably yes. If it is primarily a means to inciting religious hatred, then presumably no.

In any case, you cannot accuse the Catholic League of "lying" for something it may or may not do in a hypothetical situation. You asserted that it was misrepresenting itself - do you have any [b]concrete evidence for this assertion?[/b]

The Pledge of Allegiance case is my concrete example.

Students' religious freedom rights were being violated. The League did not come to their aid.

Case closed.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're just making things up now. The League claims to be an advocate of only the Free Exercise clause? Are you saying the League wouldn't have a fit if Congress passed a law making Lutheranism the national religion? Give me a break.

Once again - do you have a concrete example of the League "lying" or are you going to keep flinging hypothetical cases?

Presumably the League would have a fit - but, as I said before, a plausible response to a hypothetical situation does not lying make.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Once again - do you have a concrete example of the League "lying" or are you going to keep flinging hypothetical cases?.

The pledge case is not hypothetical. Which criteria of a counterexample to the League's claim do you think it fails to meet?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Pledge of Allegiance case is my concrete example.

Students' religious freedom rights were being violated. The League did not come to their aid.

Case closed.

The Pledge of Allegiance case is my concrete example.

No, it isn't.

Students' religious freedom rights were being violated.

No, they were not. The Pennsylvania Law, for instance, permitted students to opt out on religious grounds.

Case closed.

Consider it re-opened.