Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AWK on February 20, 2014, 05:42:31 PM
-
This State is retarded...
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140220/news/140229984 (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20140220/news/140229984)
Alabama House of Representatives approves bill aimed at allowing Ten Commandments display in schools, state buildings
MONTGOMERY (AP) — The Alabama House of Representatives has approved a bill aimed at allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and state buildings.
Representatives voted 77-19 Thursday for the proposed constitutional amendment that would also have to be approved by voters.
Valley Republican Rep. DuWayne Bridges says Alabama should celebrate the country's religious roots. He predicted that Alabamians would overwhelmingly approve the measure.
The legislation specifies that the display would have to be intermingled with other historical documents.
Opposed lawmakers say the proposal is unconstitutional and that lawmakers were setting the state up for a lawsuit.
Some lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to amend the bill, suggesting that Bible verses or a copy of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech should be included in the display.
It's not like we haven't been through this 100000000000 times...
-
Yes but the 100000000001th time is a charm.
-
Don't see a problem here.
You want the city to take down Christmas decorations and cancel the Easter parade, too?
-
Don't see a problem here.
You want the city to take down Christmas decorations and cancel the Easter parade, too?
Dear Mr. I like things the Old Way,
The Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States are pretty old school...and to my knowledge, still govern this country.
Signed,
tRoy Moore
-
http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/things_i_learned_during_the_al.html#incart_2box (http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/02/things_i_learned_during_the_al.html#incart_2box)
Should Alabamians be able to hang the Ten Commandments in public buildings, including schools and courthouses?
Rep. DuWayne Bridges, R-Valley, wants to give Alabamians an opportunity to decide at the ballot box, and this week he again introduced a bill to send an amendment of the Alabama Constitution to voters.
The debate over the bill was, to say the least, as interesting as it was meandering.
Here are a few things I learned about morality and Biblical history while listening to the debate.
- School shootings, patricide and matricide are due to the Ten Commandments not being displayed in schools and other government buildings. – Rep. Bridges.
- "Jesus himself said feed those who are hungry, clothe those who are nekkid." – Rep. Darrio Melton, D-Selma.
- People who believe in Mohammed practice "Muslimism." – Rep. James Buskey, D-Mobile.
"Jesus himself said feed those who are hungry, clothe those who are nekkid." – Rep. Darrio Melton.
- If you proposed an amendment to the Alabama Constitution about the Ten Commandments, Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, will give you a quiz in which he repeatedly refers to them as the "10th Amendment."
- The 10th Amendment was adopted before the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea because Moses didn't get to cross the Red Sea. – Rep. Bridges responding to a question from Rep. Holmes.
- "Love thy neighbor" is one of the Ten Commandments. – Rep. Bridges, responding to a question from Rep. Holmes.
- "Love thy neighbor" is not one of the Ten Commandments but has something to do with coveting. – Rep. Bridges correcting himself a few minutes later.
- Adultery "means having sex with someone you hadn't got any business having sex with." – Rep. Holmes.
- Rep. Alvin Holmes is the only member of the Alabama House who has abided by all the Ten Commandments. – Rep. Holmes
- "Two thousand fourteen years ago, and he was 33 before that." – Rep. Bridges on when Jesus was born.
- The annotation "AD" stands for "after death," (not "Anno Domini"). – Rep. Bridges.
- Before they bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church, "Bull Connor and them" had a prayer. – Rep. Holmes.
- Bull Connor and the others who bombed the church were never arrested and now they're in hell. – Rep. Holmes.
- Alabama State University's baseball team beat Auburn's baseball team in a practice game last night. – Rep. John Knight, D-Montgomery.
- A lot of the Auburn baseball players must have had the flu. – House Speaker Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn.
- This country was founded on godly principles and other people who come here from other places aren't going to change that. – Rep. Bridges.
- "Fifty two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were active members in orthodox churches in the colonies." – Rep. Bridges.
- "Moses and the law, they had their day, but this is a new day and it is brought on by the Lord Jesus Christ. – Rep. George Bandy, D-Opelika.
- Rep. John Rogers would rather adjourn for lunch than finish this debate now. – Rep. John Rogers
- Rep. Bridges has a bad memory and that's why God put the Ten Commandments in the Bible twice. – Rep. Bridges.
- Rep. Bridges didn't include John 3:16 in the amendment because not everybody believes in Jesus Christ. – Rep. Bridges, opposing an amendment from Rep. Bandy to add John 3:16 to the bill.
- If pressed, the Alabama Legislature will table John 3:16 by a vote of 54-32.
- Voting for the Ten Commandments puts souls in peril because "we are voting against what can save the soul of a believer." – Rep. Bandy.
- The Ten Commandments were presented by Moses, an African who was born and lived in Africa and wasn't allowed in the Promised Land. – Rep. Bandy.
- This issue has been tested by the courts numerous times and it has always ended the same way. – Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa.
- Rep. England is way too knowledgeable, intelligent and well-spoken to serve in the Alabama Legislature. – Me.
- The Alabama House will debate the same bill it has passed before for two hours before approving it by a 77-19 vote.
:facepalm:
-
Yeah, well, I bet those guys know how to do math with a slide rule.
-
Jim Dunaway tweeted Chris England and thanked him for "fighting at work today," and others thanked him for being the voice of reason.
Of course, he's a Democrat, so anything he says is patently wrong...even if he is a Methodist.
-
You edmacated peoples that don't like this, vote against it.
Last I checked, the people of each state should get to vote on things they take issue with.
-
You edmacated peoples that don't like this, vote against it.
Last I checked, the people of each state should get to vote on things they take issue with.
You might want to check again. Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional regardless of who puts them in place.
-
You might want to check again. Unconstitutional laws are still unconstitutional regardless of who puts them in place.
Things are only unconstitutional depending on how you word it.
-
Things are only unconstitutional depending on how you word it.
Your education clearly hasn't included Supreme Court decisions on the matter.
The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.
-
Depends on the definition of posting.
-
Depends on the definition of posting.
:taunt:
-
Let the people vote and see what becomes of it.
The SCOTUS is continually challenged on the 2nd amendment and squirrels like you don't say anything. So let the state challenge over this again.
It's how the process works. Somebody has to challenge the BS premise of separation of church and state that exists nowhere in our constitution!
-
Let the people vote and see what becomes of it.
The SCOTUS is continually challenged on the 2nd amendment and squirrels like you don't say anything. So let the state challenge over this again.
It's how the process works. Somebody has to challenge the BS premise of separation of church and state that exists nowhere in our constitution!
Yes, let's waste taxpayer's money to argue over something that won't benefit the taxpayers and has already been consistently decided on by federal courts for decades. Should we also waste time and money enacting slavery laws just so the federal courts can tell us again and again that they're unconstitutional? Gee golly, the voters in Alabama want slavery back! Let's just vote on it and "see what becomes of it!" What if Muslims want the Alabama legislature to meet and waste taxpayer money to debate whether verses from the Qu'ran can be posted in courtrooms? Sure! Argue away! It's not like we're in debt and have better things to spend our time and money on. Alabama citizens voting on an unconstitutional issue is how you challenge its unconstitutionality!
Wrong. If you want to challenge whether the separation of church and state should exist, then you need to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution to remove the express mention of the separation of church and state that exists in the first amendment. Enacting an amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't occur when Alabama citizens vote on something.
As far as "squirrels like me" saying anything about 2nd Amendment challenges, A) that is irrelevant to this discussion, and B) you don't have the slightest clue as to what my stance is on that, so don't create straw man arguments by pretending like you do.
-
Yes, let's waste taxpayer's money to argue over something that won't benefit the taxpayers and has already been consistently decided on by federal courts for decades. Should we also waste time and money enacting slavery laws just so the federal courts can tell us again and again that they're unconstitutional? Gee golly, the voters in Alabama want slavery back! Let's just vote on it and "see what becomes of it!" What if Muslims want the Alabama legislature to meet and waste taxpayer money to debate whether verses from the Qu'ran can be posted in courtrooms? Sure! Argue away! It's not like we're in debt and have better things to spend our time and money on. Alabama citizens voting on an unconstitutional issue is how you challenge its unconstitutionality!
Wrong. If you want to challenge whether the separation of church and state should exist, then you need to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution to remove the express mention of the separation of church and state that exists in the first amendment. Enacting an amendment to the United States Constitution doesn't occur when Alabama citizens vote on something.
As far as "squirrels like me" saying anything about 2nd Amendment challenges, A) that is irrelevant to this discussion, and B) you don't have the slightest clue as to what my stance is on that, so don't create straw man arguments by pretending like you do.
First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."
While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce). It was never intended to prevent the expression of religion. In fact, the rest of the amendment --which you ignore -- expressly prevents stifling the expression which is what is happening here.
"Separation of Church and State" does not truly exist in the way it has been implemented in the last 30+ years.
This is really a small part of a much larger argument. We have drifted so far into the protection of the whims of a minuscule minority that the rights of the majority are being trampled. Should 1000 people really be denied their right to express their faith because it makes one person uncomfortable?
We've seen it with smoking. The non-smoking minority of the 70s pushed the agenda to the point that smokers are essentially exiled now.
What about my tomato aversion. The sight of the things makes me physically ill. I hate them. Seeing them on salad bars or on people's sandwiches or plates ruins my dinner. Since I am inconvenienced shouldn't I have the right to demand that all tomatoes be removed from restaurants around the country? Why aren't my rights being considered?
-
It was never intended to prevent the expression of religion. In fact, the rest of the amendment --which you ignore -- expressly prevents stifling the expression which is what is happening here.
You're smarter than this, K. Glossing over the distinction between state action and individual action is beneath you.
-
You're smarter than this, K. Glossing over the distinction between state action and individual action is beneath you.
No. I'm smarter than that.
Constitutional interpretation has become as silly as some of the biblical discussions among literalists I've seen. "Legal scholars" and "bible literalists" are cut from the same cloth.
In their desire to deconstruct every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word "is"'is its my long-held opinion that they lose sight of the broader meaning and intent.
Once spent three days in a "bible study class" in a church where they were supposed to discuss Pauls letters to the Corinthians. By the third day I quit. These two "every word is sacred" blowhards debated over every single word -- even the "the's" -- and thought they were divining some great meaning from this exercise. Instead they missed the entire message being conveyed.
Constitutional law has reached that point. We've twisted the words to the point that in many cases I think we've lost sight of the intent.
And if I'm not mistaken the bill of rights relates to federal law and has no bearing on what states choose to do. Education, state government and local government all fall under the state purvey.
-
No. I'm smarter than that.
Constitutional interpretation has become as silly as some of the biblical discussions among literalists I've seen. "Legal scholars" and "bible literalists" are cut from the same cloth.
In their desire to deconstruct every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word "is"'is its my long-held opinion that they lose sight of the broader meaning and intent.
Once spent three days in a "bible study class" in a church where they were supposed to discuss Pauls letters to the Corinthians. By the third day I quit. These two "every word is sacred" blowhards debated over every single word -- even the "the's" -- and thought they were divining some great meaning from this exercise. Instead they missed the entire message being conveyed.
Constitutional law has reached that point. We've twisted the words to the point that in many cases I think we've lost sight of the intent.
And if I'm not mistaken the bill of rights relates to federal law and has no bearing on what states choose to do. Education, state government and local government all fall under the state purvey.
That was a pile of bullshit unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.
And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that. You're just being obtuse.
-
That was a pile of bullshit unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.
And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that. You're just being obtuse.
Are we going to debate the "the's" now?
Only the scholars see this as you do.
The rest of us see the constitution for what is is, not what each word means in Latin.
There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. This is a liberal interpretation of something that is not there. Last I heard, The Federalist was not part of the constitution.
-
Are we going to debate the "the's" now?
Only the scholars see this as you do.
The rest of us see the constitution for what is is, not what each word means in Latin.
So you're a constitutional literalist?
-
That was a pile of bullshoot unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.
And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that. You're just being obtuse.
Federal law doesn't trump laws that are "reserved to the states"
There is no explicit "separation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution. That is an interpretative statement and one I don't necessarily agree is supported to the extent it has been thus far enforced.
Here's the thing, though. I'm not calling you an idiot, uneducated or any of the other slurs as the mud-hurling hystericals have done in this and other threads. I disagree with your position and the basis under which you've reached it. But that's all.
-
I disagree with your position and the basis under which you've reached it. But that's all.
That's fine. Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company. It also makes you wrong.
-
That's fine. Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company. It also makes you wrong.
Actually? It doesn't. And therein lies the problem.
-
That's fine. Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company. It also makes you wrong.
Yes Kaos, you poor layman. Let the scholars take care of the smart stuff for you. They know what's best for us....
Where have we heard that before?
-
Yes Kaos, you poor layman. Let the scholars take care of the smart stuff for you. They know what's best for us....
Where have we heard that before?
I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.
-
I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.
not everything is that extreme. There are many people in this world who know how to treat the flu and know that hot is on the left, cold is on the right, and shit don't flow uphill.
The constitution was not written for scholars, it was written for the LAY PEOPLE!
-
I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.
Not giving legal advice. But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so. But that's another story.
I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.
I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.
Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.
-
Not giving legal advice. But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so. But that's another story.
I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.
I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.
Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.
All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.
-
Not giving legal advice. But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so. But that's another story.
I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.
I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.
Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.
Is that not the difference between an education and an indoctrination?
-
All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.
How does your experience with coke whores play into this?
-
How does your experience with coke whores play into this?
That's some real world experience that you can bank!
-
All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.
All due respect but I know an ass ton of lawyers. They can't read any better than I can. You don't have to be "trained" to understand the constitution. It's written in pretty plain English for anyone to read for themselves.
All due respect again your "training" doesn't give you any greater skill at deriving meaning from a paragraph than me or anyone else who knows how to use words effectively.
I will admit that I can't cite from the top of my head which (too often idiotic) ruling twisted a certain word to have a meaning for which it may of may not have been originally intended. I may not know which specific case applies to a certain set of circumstances but I can look it up.
Your "training" is in how to apply the interpretations others have made. No disrespect intended because it was the career I originally wanted before life and some passionately made bad decisions took me down another path. But I definitely don't need "legal training" to read the Constitution, study history and infer meaning.
-
Some of you guys contribute to the mockery of this State...
-
Through this maze of bullshit Kaos has crafted, he has successfully been able to saturate the point he was trying to make earlier out of the conversation. You know, before he insulted the profession of half this board, while simultaneously claiming he "knows the profession" better than those who've studied it since their early 20s.
That point was that the poor, white, Christian majority ain't got the same rights no more as ever'one else.
I can't even put myself into the brain of someone who that grossly lacks logic. It would make sense only if quotes from the Q'uaran, Torah, and the works of Buddha were up there, but the Ten Commandments weren't allowed. But of course, again, you know that.
No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:
(http://www.thecross-photo.com/images/Cross_Garden_2.jpg)
(http://www.thecross-photo.com/images/Cross_Garden_4.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gGQ0xzkkrsU/TPRnEfaYeLI/AAAAAAAACI0/Qu5PI41RHpU/s1600/Cross%2BGarden%2BPrattville%2B%25281%2529.jpg)
Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.
And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fucking court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.
-
That was a pile of bullshoot unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.
And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that. You're just being obtuse.
Does federal law trump state law because the feds say so or because the constitution says so? And I think Kaos is spot on about the intent. I don't think that a legal scholar can be much more accurate judging intent than a ditch digger regarding the so called "separation of church and state", which never appears anywhere in the constitution as "separation of church and state". I think he's right about the intent being to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion.
Why? Mainly, because that's the way it reads. Also, because I find it hard to believe that scripture would hang in the very room in which the decision was made if there is supposed to be "separation of church and state."
Just because I believe that kids should be able to pray out loud at school or before a ballgame does not mean that I think that they should indoctrinate kids with Christianity. "Is merely letting them pray indoctrination?" I don't think so. "What if they pray to Allah?" Yep, if that floats their boat.
Is this particular issue futile and a waste of money? Most certainly. No one is willing to die. People have to be willing to die in order for something of this magnitude to shift. I don't personally know anyone willing to go that far.
To me, it's simply a state's rights issue as long as no one is being oppressed. My interpretation of oppression is obviously a lot different from yours.
-
No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:
Did you ever even sit down and talk to Mr. Rice? He was not a loon, he just had a conviction that you did not understand. But yet, in your esteemed educational mind, he HAD to be a loon.
Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.
And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fucking court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.
And yet is was not ADDED to the constitution. You ever stop to wonder why?
I'm not sure how a letter from Jefferson becomes constitutional law!
-
The government, and by extension the courts, are supposed to be fair, impartial and treat every one equally.
If I am an Athiest or a Buddhist or a Muslim and am before a court where a Christian text hangs on the wall, especially when that text consists of a set of rules that, according to Christians, "everyone" is supposed to follow, how much confidence will I have that the person in the black robe sitting in judgment on me and my actions will not apply these religious rules to me, even though I do not subscribe to them and do not follow them all as written? That I will get a fair and impartial hearing on the merits of my case? And at the end of the day, one of the greatest principles on which this country was founded is "innocent until proven guilty", and to me, justice should prevail over all. If I feel that I will not get justice because I do not place a Christian God over all other gods, then that is much more egregious violation of rights than some Baptist screaming his rights were violated because the 10 Commandments AREN'T posted in a courtroom.
To the extent the 10 Commandments are incorporated into secular law - and many are (murder and theft being just two) - then fine. But not all 10 are incorporated into secular law, and I do not want to be judged by anything other than secular law if I am before a court, my own Christian beliefs aside.
Posting the 10 Commandments makes us like Saudi Arabia and other oppressive countries, where Sharia law and the law of the land are one and the same, and everyone is judged under rules that result in the nearly automatic conviction of non-Christians, and the application of barbaric punishments. Yeah, I want to be like that.
-
First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."
It does not mention the exact words "separation of church and state," but it's about as expressly mentioned as you can get without bickering over exact phrasing. If the government can make no law that's "respecting" a religion, then how is there not a separation of church and state? The common meaning of "respecting" is "with reference or regard to." You know...use the basic definition of words, instead of "deconstruct[ing] every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word 'is' is." If the government can't even make a law referencing or in regard to a religion, then how could there be any juncture of church and state?
The Constitution also doesn't mention the "right to privacy" in a general sense, and in fact only expressly mentions a right to privacy in specific circumstances (right to privacy in your beliefs, to not house soldiers, to no undergo unwarranted search and seizure, and to not self-incriminate), but it exists in a more general manner than just those circumstances.
While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce).
While you may want to attribute a specific definition to the clause based on your own reasonings, it can't exactly be said that the phrase was meant only to prevent the U.S. from establishing an official church. This can be seen in many different ways.
First, the intent of the founding fathers. James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law. Not solely the creation of an official church, but mere endorsement of a religion. This reflects the wording of the First Amendment, which references "respecting" an establishment of religion. Thomas Jefferson is the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The current wording of the first amendment is due to Charles Pinckney, who urged that the U.S. should pass no law on the subject of religion. Not just a law establishing a church, but any law relating to religion, which again is reflected in the wording "no law respecting an establishment of religion." George Mason argued that no religion should be "favored or established by law;" there wasn't merely a ban on the establishment of a religion, but also favoring a religion. Again, very similar to the pretty plain wording "respecting an establishment of religion." The list goes on and on, but the point is that it's pretty hard to argue that you know what the first amendment "really means" when so many of the founders who wrote the amendment directly disagree with you.
Second, other portions of the Constitution. Article VI, for example, states that Senators and Representatives should not have to pass a religious test in order to be eligible for office. Establishing a test is not the same as establishing a church, yet it's specifically prohibited in the Constitution. If the Constitution was only meant to prohibit religion being involved with the government to such an extent that only the creation of a U.S. church was banned, then why include this article? Why use a generalized phrase in the first amendment that broadly states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion? Why not specifically ban the creation of a U.S. church and leave it at that? Because there was an intent to create a pretty strict separation between church and state so that the government would not be viewed as favoring one religion, and thus favoring those who practice that religion, while alienating citizens who have different religious beliefs.
-
It does not mention the exact words "separation of church and state," but it's about as expressly mentioned as you can get without bickering over exact phrasing. If the government can make no law that's "respecting" a religion, then how is there not a separation of church and state? The common meaning of "respecting" is "with reference or regard to." You know...use the basic definition of words, instead of "deconstruct[ing] every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word 'is' is." If the government can't even make a law referencing or in regard to a religion, then how could there be any juncture of church and state?
The Constitution also doesn't mention the "right to privacy" in a general sense, and in fact only expressly mentions a right to privacy in specific circumstances (right to privacy in your beliefs, to not house soldiers, to no undergo unwarranted search and seizure, and to not self-incriminate), but it exists in a more general manner than just those circumstances.
While you may want to attribute a specific definition to the clause based on your own reasonings, it can't exactly be said that the phrase was meant only to prevent the U.S. from establishing an official church. This can be seen in many different ways.
First, the intent of the founding fathers. James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law. Not solely the creation of an official church, but mere endorsement of a religion. This reflects the wording of the First Amendment, which references "respecting" an establishment of religion. Thomas Jefferson is the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The current wording of the first amendment is due to Charles Pinckney, who urged that the U.S. should pass no law on the subject of religion. Not just a law establishing a church, but any law relating to religion, which again is reflected in the wording "no law respecting an establishment of religion." George Mason argued that no religion should be "favored or established by law;" there wasn't merely a ban on the establishment of a religion, but also favoring a religion. Again, very similar to the pretty plain wording "respecting an establishment of religion." The list goes on and on, but the point is that it's pretty hard to argue that you know what the first amendment "really means" when so many of the founders who wrote the amendment directly disagree with you.
Second, other portions of the Constitution. Article VI, for example, states that Senators and Representatives should not have to pass a religious test in order to be eligible for office. Establishing a test is not the same as establishing a church, yet it's specifically prohibited in the Constitution. If the Constitution was only meant to prohibit religion being involved with the government to such an extent that only the creation of a U.S. church was banned, then why include this article? Why use a generalized phrase in the first amendment that broadly states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion? Why not specifically ban the creation of a U.S. church and leave it at that? Because there was an intent to create a pretty strict separation between church and state so that the government would not be viewed as favoring one religion, and thus favoring those who practice that religion, while alienating citizens who have different religious beliefs.
TL;DR. All I heard was yadda yadda bubbbbbbbbblllllleee bub burp yadda yep doodle dee doo yadda yoo intent bobbity bop Hooooodie Hooooo! What do you think you are a fudgeing lawyer or something?
-
TL;DR. All I heard was yadda yadda bubbbbbbbbblllllleee bub burp yadda yep doodle dee doo yadda yoo intent bobbity bop Hooooodie Hooooo! What do you think you are a fudgeing lawyer or something?
There were three burps, eight yaddas, and two bubbbbbbbbblllllleees in my post. Don't twist what I'm saying.
-
Through this maze of bullshoot Kaos has crafted, he has successfully been able to saturate the point he was trying to make earlier out of the conversation. You know, before he insulted the profession of half this board, while simultaneously claiming he "knows the profession" better than those who've studied it since their early 20s.
That point was that the poor, white, Christian majority ain't got the same rights no more as ever'one else.
I can't even put myself into the brain of someone who that grossly lacks logic. It would make sense only if quotes from the Q'uaran, Torah, and the works of Buddha were up there, but the Ten Commandments weren't allowed. But of course, again, you know that.
No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:
(http://www.thecross-photo.com/images/Cross_Garden_2.jpg)
(http://www.thecross-photo.com/images/Cross_Garden_4.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gGQ0xzkkrsU/TPRnEfaYeLI/AAAAAAAACI0/Qu5PI41RHpU/s1600/Cross%2BGarden%2BPrattville%2B%25281%2529.jpg)
Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.
And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fudgeing court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.
Okay, we now know of at least one person who lacks the reading comprehension skills required to interpret the constitution (or any other document) and extract any legitimate meaning.
That you could take what I have written and turn it into ^^ this frothing rampage? Pretty shocking inability to comprehend concepts.
-
Okay, we now know of at least one person who lacks the reading comprehension skills required to interpret the constitution (or any other document) and extract any legitimate meaning.
That you could take what I have written and turn it into ^^ this frothing rampage? Pretty shocking inability to comprehend concepts.
What did I miss?
First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."
While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce). It was never intended to prevent the expression of religion. In fact, the rest of the amendment --which you ignore -- expressly prevents stifling the expression which is what is happening here.
"Separation of Church and State" does not truly exist in the way it has been implemented in the last 30+ years.
This is really a small part of a much larger argument. We have drifted so far into the protection of the whims of a minuscule minority that the rights of the majority are being trampled. Should 1000 people really be denied their right to express their faith because it makes one person uncomfortable?
We've seen it with smoking. The non-smoking minority of the 70s pushed the agenda to the point that smokers are essentially exiled now.
What about my tomato aversion. The sight of the things makes me physically ill. I hate them. Seeing them on salad bars or on people's sandwiches or plates ruins my dinner. Since I am inconvenienced shouldn't I have the right to demand that all tomatoes be removed from restaurants around the country? Why aren't my rights being considered?
Your false argument that not being able to prominently display the 10 Commandments on a court house wall is equivalent to banning others from consuming tomatoes demonstrates your lack of understanding on the meaning of Separation of Church & State.
No one's taking your Bible away.
-
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Please find for me in the Constitution where this exists. I looked and can't find a single mention of the Danbury Baptists.
This was one man's opinion. One man who contributed to the discussion that framed the Constitution, but not the sole contributor by any means.
-
Posting the 10 Commandments makes us like Saudi Arabia and other oppressive countries, where Sharia law and the law of the land are one and the same, and everyone is judged under rules that result in the nearly automatic conviction of non-Christians, and the application of barbaric punishments. Yeah, I want to be like that.
In this case, not even close. The proposal is to allow it to be hung as a historical document along with others. If hung alone, I see a point.
The problem with the current ruling is that it does not allow for the fact that the ten commandments is and has been a basis for our secular law from a historical point. Nothing in our country's history has ever been based on islamic or sharia law and therefore could not qualify as a historical document pertaining to our laws.
If you hung the Hammurabi code in the wall, I feel that would be historical also. But because that is not associated with Christianity, many would not say a word.
It's not really fair and impartial to throw it out because it is in the Bible is it?
To disallow it from anywhere in government buildings IS religious persecution. And a denial of where our law came from in a historical context.
-
Please find for me in the Constitution where this exists. I looked and can't find a single mention of the Danbury Baptists.
This was one man's opinion. One man who contributed to the discussion that framed the Constitution, but not the sole contributor by any means.
Because every Ammendment is one goddamn sentence. You're the one saying others are trying to speak for the founding fathers. Read what they had to say about it. Read what their obvious intentions were if you don't think they were clear enough in their one sentence, read where he fleshed out the exact phrasing that is in there:
the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
How much clearer can he be? And it's not just him. VV quoted Madison as well. And it's not just those two. Please find me ONE quote from anyone who framed the Constitution that says they wanted religious iconography to be displayed in a courthouse. Or anything that even remotely indicates that Jefferson was alone in his "separation of church and state" "interpretation" of what he himself wrote, and really they thought that religion should totes be all up in our laws.
-
What did I miss?
Your false argument that not being able to prominently display the 10 Commandments on a court house wall is equivalent to banning others from consuming tomatoes demonstrates your lack of understanding on the meaning of Separation of Church & State.
No one's taking your Bible away.
Did I say it was equivalent?
The tomato analogy was outlined as a part of a much broader discussion. Perhaps you missed that.
My contention is that in our rush to bow to the will of the few, we trample the rights of the many. The "church and state" argument is a small part of that, but a part nonetheless. The entire "church and state" argument (which is fraudulent on its face) has extended to the point that clerks at Target are prohibited from wishing shoppers Merry Christmas because one in ten thousand might take offense.
Do I think there should be a Church of 'Merica with Brother Bush at its head? Of course not. I believe people should have the right to choose how or if they worship. But I also don't believe the First Amendment was designed to prevent a student from wearing a Jesus Saves shirt to school, or a teacher from wearing a cross pin, or a school assembly being required to omit the words "Under God" from the pledge. Yet these are all real-world examples of how this bogus "church-state" nonsense has been applied.
-
Because every Ammendment is one goddamn sentence. You're the one saying others are trying to speak for the founding fathers. Read what they had to say about it. Read what their obvious intentions were if you don't think they were clear enough in their one sentence, read where he fleshed out the exact phrasing that is[/bi] in there:
How much clearer can he be? And it's not just him. VV quoted Madison as well. And it's not just those two. Please find me ONE quote from anyone who framed the Constitution that says they wanted religious iconography to be displayed in a courthouse. Or anything that even remotely indicates that Jefferson was alone in his "separation of church and state" "interpretation" of what he himself wrote, and really they thought that religion should totes be all up in our laws.
Well perhaps he should have written it that way, then. Too bad he didn't. You can't use that now because it's not part of the Constitution. Any lawyer should be able to tell you that. Have to read and interpret only what it says.
And "I'M" trying to speak for the Founding Fathers? No, we've had a Supreme Court twisting that all up for 40 years now. I'm merely reading it and interpreting it in the sense in which I believe it was intended, absent all the reversible case law that's been added as support since. You do understand that everything you believe can be turned on its head by the next set of robes who can read the same thing and come up with a different conclusion than the previous ones, don't you? It's happened before. It will happen again.
I guess when they were BUILDING THE CAPITOL they meant for the religious iconography to be excluded from the buildings and simply forgot. Or maybe they thought the statue of Moses was Jerry Garcia. Or maybe when they were carving GOD in the marble, Jefferson was out banging a slave and it was too late for him to object when he finally saw it.
Because all that was done in his lifetime. Except the slave banging I guess.
-
The entire "church and state" argument (which is fraudulent on its face) has extended to the point that clerks at Target are prohibited from wishing shoppers Merry Christmas because one in ten thousand might take offense.
They choose to no longer say Merry Christmas because alienating non-Christians is not profitable to their bottom line. They're a private business, not a government agency. See Chick-Fil-A for why this has nothing to do with separation of church & state.
But I also don't believe the First Amendment was designed to prevent a student from wearing a Jesus Saves shirt to school
You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.
or a teacher from wearing a cross pin
Again, link? I call BS.
or a school assembly being required to omit the words "Under God" from the pledge.
This is the only legitimate example you listed. "Under God" was artificially added by Eisenhower in 54. The founding fathers would have never put it in there. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this, other than in hindsight, the addition was unnecessary and kind of is unconstitutional. I'm not crusading to remove it, but if someone claims to be offended by it, I can see their point.
-
And there are many other founding father who had no problem mixing church with state:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755)
there is an argument that can always be made from both sides.
Kaos is right, the few have taken form the many. The problem with the few vs. the many, is ther is no middle ground for the few.
The letter from Jefferson to his constituents is not reason enough to base constitutional law on. It is a huge stretch.
If we go by what some of the guys I linked to said, we should have God everywhere in government. But I don't subscribe to that either.
The absolute removal af the ten commandments from government buildings is ridiculous and the greatest example of how the few interpret what seems to be an easy concept by the many.
What Alabama is proposing is in no way unconstitutional according to the original document. (not the hijacked one)
-
There were three burps, eight yaddas, and two bubbbbbbbbblllllleees in my post. Don't twist what I'm saying.
snicker-snort
-
From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses.
-
You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.
The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that public school students retain their constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and expression. This includes the right to wear Christian t-shirts and other religious paraphernalia. See, e.g., Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007); Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988); Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Consistent decisions from 1969 to 2007 that, under the Constitution, children have the right to wear religious paraphernalia. Man, our religious freedoms have just been eroded by the liberal court system's improper interpretation of the Constitution since the good ole days.
-
From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses.
You stupidly missed all references to historical value.
-
They choose to no longer say Merry Christmas because alienating non-Christians is not profitable to their bottom line. They're a private business, not a government agency. See Chick-Fil-A for why this has nothing to do with separation of church & state.
You sure that's "real world"? Cause I've never heard of it, nor is google turning up any results. If true, it sounds like a violation of the other part of that kid's first amendment right. But I doubt it's true, and even further doubt that it was upheld as constitutional.
Again, link? I call BS.
This is the only legitimate example you listed. "Under God" was artificially added by Eisenhower in 54. The founding fathers would have never put it in there. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about this, other than in hindsight, the addition was unnecessary and kind of is unconstitutional. I'm not crusading to remove it, but if someone claims to be offended by it, I can see their point.
You and your freaking links. There was life before Bing.
I don't have a link to every document I've ever read in my life. But if you want to google hard enough you'll find examples of people
The Christian shirt ban was from Delaware I think. But I've read about several. Here's another where a New York school choir couldn't sing Silent Night. Of course you have to go to London to read about it because American media won't report this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526672/Parents-outrage-teachers-cut-references-Jesus-Christ-school-choirs-rendition-Silent-Night.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526672/Parents-outrage-teachers-cut-references-Jesus-Christ-school-choirs-rendition-Silent-Night.html)
A woman I taught with was personally told to remove a cross pin she was wearing on the collar of her dress when I taught. I'm sorry I don't have her address and phone number. I was told I couldn't mention the "religious aspects" of The Crusades when I taught history. Couldn't figure out how to discuss that without mentioning religion so we just skipped over it.
-
And there are many other founding father who had no problem mixing church with state:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755)
there is an argument that can always be made from both sides.
The vast majority of those quotes are concerning their own religious beliefs. "I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world." "I . . . [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins." "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
There is no doubt that the majority of the founders were Christian (although many of those founders who were quoted, such as Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, were actually deists or had a very distinct religious belief that was loosely based on Christianity). However, history does not reflect that their desire was to incorporate Christianity or any specific religion into our government in any way. Regardless of their personal beliefs, they made it clear that those should remain as personal beliefs, and not be espoused or favored by the government.
Afterall, that site full of quotes includes religious statements from Jefferson, who actually originated the "separation of church and state" phrase. Or Madison, who said that the government functions with complete success "by the total separation of the Church from the State." Or Franklin, who posited that a religion should be able to support itself, and that if it can not support itself, then it is not a good one. We can paint the founders as Christians all day, but it doesn't affect their political stance regarding the separation of church and state.
-
You stupidly missed all references to historical value.
Lulz, thanks for proving my point. Quran has no historical value? It is ok to hang it as long as it is your religion.
-
Lulz, thanks for proving my point. Quran has no historical value? It is ok to hang it as long as it is your religion.
Whiffed again!
-
Whiffed again!
My entire point, is that you claim some historical value argument as to why you think the ten commandments should be able to be displayed. 1. The founding fathers (who some were Christian) and constitution strictly fought to have a separation of Church and State and 2. your argument is just to hide your true reason for wanting the commandments displayed.
-
I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.
Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one. Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.
For the record and back to the lecture at hand - I'm with Wench here. It's not a secret we aren't atheists or liberals. But I don't really favor displaying ANY religious material on govt property in a public manner either. As long as it's consistent it doesn't bother me. Fair enough right? I try to stick to my libertarian guns as much as possible and wouldn't be able to call myself such if I didn't have this stance.
I'm a Christian (although I have come to despise organized religion) and as long as the govt has not interfered with me and my practicing of freedom of religion, then the govt's Constitutional obligation has been met. Half of the problem is there isn't much of a pragmatic voice in social debates. The religious right gets bent out of shape about wanting their stuff everywhere with authority without much resort to "reason" or "legality" - and the atheist side makes a mockery of everything and anything that someone religious might believe. Not exactly a recipe for civility.
-
From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses.
And this very point is exactly why I am against religious displays of any kind on govt property. As long as it's consistent and NO religious subj matter is displayed I'm cool.
Make fun of the Ten Commandments, get them removed but then allow Quran quotes to be displayed? Then surely you could see that would be hypocritical and how people would take issue. But until then.....I have no issue.
-
Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one. Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.
It's the elected legislators' (not all of whom are lawyers) collective job to write legislation. Wes's point was that he's not going to get medical advice from a lawyer, as it's not the lawyer's job to diagnose a health condition and prescribe a treatment. The ACA doesn't dictate what medical treatments citizens should undergo when they are diagnosed will illnesses, and Dodd Frank doesn't dictate what investments financial institutions should choose. Bad laws? That's a different debate, but in relation to Wes's point, it's not relevant.
-
Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one. Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.
For the record and back to the lecture at hand - I'm with Wench here. It's not a secret we aren't atheists or liberals. But I don't really favor displaying ANY religious material on govt property in a public manner either. As long as it's consistent it doesn't bother me. Fair enough right? I try to stick to my libertarian guns as much as possible and wouldn't be able to call myself such if I didn't have this stance.
I'm a Christian (although I have come to despise organized religion) and as long as the govt has not interfered with me and my practicing of freedom of religion, then the govt's Constitutional obligation has been met. Half of the problem is there isn't much of a pragmatic voice in social debates. The religious right gets bent out of shape about wanting their stuff everywhere with authority without much resort to "reason" or "legality" - and the atheist side makes a mockery of everything and anything that someone religious might believe. Not exactly a recipe for civility.
You and I are much more politcally aligned than you'd like to believe.
-
It won't make a difference unless they add to it, "Thou shalt not inbreed."
-
It's the elected legislators' (not all of whom are lawyers) collective job to write legislation. Wes's point was that he's not going to get medical advice from a lawyer, as it's not the lawyer's job to diagnose a health condition and prescribe a treatment. The ACA doesn't dictate what medical treatments citizens should undergo when they are diagnosed will illnesses, and Dodd Frank doesn't dictate what investments financial institutions should choose. Bad laws? That's a different debate, but in relation to Wes's point, it's not relevant.
You are dead wrong on Dodd Frank. And both were written mainly by lawyers especially Dodd (JD-UL)/Frank (JD-Harvard). But I see your point in re to what Wes said. Just wanted to point out that the "experts" don't always have the most input on something that affects a lot of people. But people don't seem to have issue with that for the most part.
Now, t minus 3...2...until weskie calls me obtuse. :thumsup:
It might surprise you guys to know that I also didn't hate the Mahr movie "Religious". He made some decent points in it - mainly about "organized" religion not the people themselves. I'll give him kudos for not just picking on Christians but also touching on the other Eastern religions as well, especially Islam - which he seemed to be more frustrated with than the Christians. A lot of my dislike for Mahr deals more with his condescending and dogmatic nature. I do think there are a lot of religion followers out there today that give those religions a bad name. Which is pretty much what Gahndi observed as well.
"I love your Christ. But so many of your Christians are nothing like your Christ."
-
You and I are much more politcally aligned than you'd like to believe.
Never argued that. I think sometimes you let the far right religious loons force you to take a farther devil's advocate argument than you normally would. And Ive done that before too....just to spite them. It happens.
-
My entire point, is that you claim some historical value argument as to why you think the ten commandments should be able to be displayed. 1. The founding fathers (who some were Christian) and constitution strictly fought to have a separation of Church and State and 2. your argument is just to hide your true reason for wanting the commandments displayed.
Separation of church and state as you portray it is a lie.
The "fight" was against the US government creating a religion. It was not intended to prevent governmental entities from displaying religious material. It was to prevent the government from establishing a mandatory religion. So long as the government doesn't FORCE you to do something, so long as you maintain your personal freedom of choice -- which you do -- it should be fine.
The amendment was never intended to excise all mention of religion from state sponsored events. So long as you can choose not to participate the amendment served its purpose.
The twisting of the amendment to mean that no person can ever be offended is recent and utterly wrong.
Study history. Learn something.
-
You are dead wrong on Dodd Frank.
The law affects how the financial institutions can operate to some degree, yes, but again, the laws don't say, "It's better to invest in this commodity in summer months, so you're only allowed to invest in that commodity." There is no financial advice being given through the law. Rather, the law is aimed at preventing financial institutions from being predatory lenders, from being under-insured, and generally from being the cause of financial crises. When the government asserts a compelling or legitimate interest, it has the ability to create legislation in furtherance of that interest. And it is the job of the legislators, attorneys or not, to create that legislation. Just because Dodd Frank affects financial institutions does not mean that it gives financial advice and thus must be created by financial advisers. In fact, whether a compelling or legitimate interest exists on behalf of the government is a question of law, as is whether the government can intervene and how it can intervene to protect that interest, so it would be somewhat silly to state that financial advisers should be in charge of making those legal decisions.
Let's also not pretend like Dodd Frank is the first piece of legislation to ever interfere with how financial institutions operate. One only needs to look to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, or the alterations that the Patriot Act made to the Bank Secrecy Act, to acknowledge that the regulation of financial institutions has been around for awhile and has been instituted by both political parties. Again, there is no argument being made from me whether any of these laws were good or bad...I'm simply pointing out that just because legislators make a law that affects financial institutions does not mean they are inserting their professional opinion regarding financial advice. They are laws that are meant to restrict certain actions that the government finds harmful to the nation in some way, and thus they are asserting their ability to create legislation through a compelling or legitimate interest of the government.
-
Separation of church and state as you portray it is a lie.
The "fight" was against the US government creating a religion. It was not intended to prevent governmental entities from displaying religious material. It was to prevent the government from establishing a mandatory religion. So long as the government doesn't FORCE you to do something, so long as you maintain your personal freedom of choice -- which you do -- it should be fine.
The amendment was never intended to excise all mention of religion from state sponsored events. So long as you can choose not to participate the amendment served its purpose.
The twisting of the amendment to mean that no person can ever be offended is recent and utterly wrong.
Study history. Learn something.
Yeah...no.
-
Doesn't the state have to ensure the residence have the ability to read and understand Engrish?
http://www.alabamas13.com/story/21963300/13-investigates-illiteracy-in-alabama (http://www.alabamas13.com/story/21963300/13-investigates-illiteracy-in-alabama)
-
Yeah...no.
Yes infinity.
-
Yes infinity.
I know this will not stick, but... Just because you think a certain way, doesn't make it true.
-
I know this will not stick, but... Just because you think a certain way, doesn't make it true.
Look at history and forget all the BS that was fed into your brain by liberal professors and left-leaning "legal scholars."
Forget case law -- which is merely people interpreting something that could mean something different to a different group of people -- and look just at the history of this country's beginnings.
Why did the Pilgrims come? Was it because they couldn't have Mosques in England? Because they were pissed at the Royal Lord Rory Moreth for displaying the Ten Commandments in Parliament? No.
What where they escaping? Pilgrims were separatists who wanted to separate from the Church of England and follow the teachings of John Calvin. Puritans followed the Pilgrims. Their goal was to "purify" the church and shed it of Catholic trappings. They were pissed, actually, because they didn't like the way non-Puritans worshiped in England.
So there's the foundation in the 1600s. Second and third generation later, we're writing a breakup letter with England, followed by our New Country resolutions.
When they spoke of not allowing the government to establish a religion, what was their frame of reference? Fleeing the freaking Church of England and breaking away from the other "state" religion, Catholicism.
So you tell me now, it was their intent to ban all public displays of Christianity? I laugh uproariously at your lack of historical reference.
-
So you tell me now, it was their intent to ban all public displays of Christianity? I laugh uproariously at your lack of historical reference.
But Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists. The Baptists for goodness sake. He knew that if he let them, they would force the Ten Commandments be hung in every building in the country.
Don't you get it! Jefferson was the only person to sign the declaration I independence. What he believed WAS law!
-
But Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists. The Baptists for goodness sake. He knew that if he let them, they would force the Ten Commandments be hung in every building in the country.
Don't you get it! Jefferson was the only person to sign the declaration I independence. What he believed WAS law!
They don't even know what he meant by it anyway. It's disgraceful how little history people actually know.
The letter wasn't intended to create the "separation" these idiot judges have rammed upon us in the last 40 years, it actually was the opposite. It was a political maneuver designed to show the people of Connecticut that Jefferson was a religious man since he had been vilified as an atheist or worse by Conn. politicians during his presidential campaign. His goal was to reassure them that he was a religious man in some respects and that he would not use federal power to support those in Conn who sought to establish an official state religion that would infringe on the practices of the Baptists.
"separation of church and state" my red ass.
If Jefferson was such a god-hating "keep 'em separated" president, I wonder why he, as president, used and approved federal funds to build Christian ministries and to aid missionaries?
Jefferson believed in state rights. His "wall" was of a federal nature. As governor, he established numerous religious holidays. As president he opted not to. Why? Or doesn't history matter?
Why does only this one letter among thousands matter when Jefferson provided better insight in his second inaugural address?
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.
Parse away.
It was Hugo Black, not Jefferson, who was so ignorant and agenda oriented that he refused to understand and completely twisted the meaning.
With the right Supreme Court and the right case, it can always be untwisted. Which is why this effort matters whether it's for the 300th time or not.
-
Funny how the arguments against separation of church and state keep flip flopping between "Read the Constitution like a lay person, the words aren't in there" and "Look beyond the Constitution and search for historical context."
Meanwhile, both arguments ignore the actual wording of the first amendment (no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, not a restriction on a law specifically creating a U.S. church), as well as ignoring the historical context of the Enlightenment and most of the influential founders primarily being deists who repeatedly made references to a pretty strict separation of church and state.
Then there's the existence of Article VI in the Constitution, as well as the wording of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was unanimously ratified by the 1797 Senate. It's not as if the first amendment is the only prohibition of religion in government; the other references go beyond simply restricting the government from creating a U.S. church. It's rather silly to state that the only thing the Constitution restricts in relation to religion is the creation of a U.S. church when Article VI plainly offers an additional restriction, and when the first amendment does not specifically refer to a U.S. church, but rather broadly states that no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be passed.
-
Funny how the arguments against separation of church and state keep flip flopping between "Read the Constitution like a lay person, the words aren't in there" and "Look beyond the Constitution and search for historical context."
Meanwhile, both arguments ignore the actual wording of the first amendment (no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, not a restriction on a law specifically creating a U.S. church), as well as ignoring the historical context of the Enlightenment and most of the influential founders primarily being deists who repeatedly made references to a pretty strict separation of church and state.
Then there's the existence of Article VI in the Constitution, as well as the wording of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was unanimously ratified by the 1797 Senate. It's not as if the first amendment is the only prohibition of religion in government; the other references go beyond simply restricting the government from creating a U.S. church. It's rather silly to state that the only thing the Constitution restricts in relation to religion is the creation of a U.S. church when Article VI plainly offers an additional restriction, and when the first amendment does not specifically refer to a U.S. church, but rather broadly states that no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be passed.
Surely you're truly not this obtuse.
Article I (and the entire Bill of Rights) refers to federal power. So that's out. States can do what they want.
Article VI? Really? No.
And I could give a shoot about a Tripoli. Don't live there. Don't want to.
As for the "read the Constitution" vs. "what they meant" I stick with read it. Other people have tried to claim "well it means this based on some letter that's not a part of it. I think that's stupid. But if you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis, and enough historical knowledge to see past the sliver of manure you were shoveled. Too often the SC lacks this ability. Many here clearly do.
-
It's disgraceful how little history people actually know.
The letter wasn't intended to create the "separation" these idiot judges have rammed upon us in the last 40 years, it actually was the opposite.
2014 - 1878 ≤ 40 years. Got it, historical guru.
Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:
CONTENTS OF JEFFERSON'S LETTER APPEAR HERE
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.
-
2014 - 1878 ≤ 40 years. Got it, historical guru.
Hugo Black. Left us in 1971. So 43 years plus a little.
Math. I has it. Knowledge of history, you don't.
Your Jefferson "quote" means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
-
Article I (and the entire Bill of Rights) refers to federal power. So that's out. States can do what they want.
Maybe in your world and with your interpretations, but since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the 1920's, the Bill of Rights applies to states.
Article VI? Really? No.
Article VI prevents the government from requiring religious tests before a person can take office. If the Constitution's only prohibition against religious involvement by the government was to ban the creation of a U.S. church, then why does this article exist? If the government can, in fact, do whatever it wants in relation to religion other than creating a U.S. church, then how do you explain away the existence of Article VI's last sentence?
And I could give a shoot about a Tripoli. Don't live there. Don't want to.
The treaty was ratified, unanimously, by many of the same people who drafted the Constitution. It was also chronologically a lot closer in time to the creation of the Constitution, and thus much more likely to have an accurate reflection of what was intended when the Constitution was created.
As for the "read the Constitution" vs. "what they meant" I stick with read it. Other people have tried to claim "well it means this based on some letter that's not a part of it. I think that's stupid. But if you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis, and enough historical knowledge to see past the sliver of manure you were shoveled. Too often the SC lacks this ability. Many here clearly do.
Then surely you've acknowledged that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the U.S. from only creating a government church? Rather, the plain wording of the first amendment prohibits the government from creating any law ("no law") in reference or regard to ("respecting") an establishment of religion.
Hugo Black. Left us in 1971. So 43 years plus a little.
Math. I has it. Knowledge of history, you don't.
Your Jefferson "quote" means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
If you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis. I didn't reference the Hugo Black opinion; I referenced Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 Supreme Court case. This opinion stated that Jefferson's comments concerning the separation of church and state "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." You act as if judges have only been cramming separation of church and state down our throats for the past "40 years" when, in fact, a Supreme Court that was much closer chronologically to the creation of the Constitution stated the same.
-
You wanna go Jefferson we can go Jefferson. We'll get to Hugo the Perverter later, but for now, Jefferson.
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813
Agree. Shouldn't have a priest/minister/rabbi/joboo/whatever running both the church and the country. This backs up my position clearly.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
Agree again. Shouldn't have a priest/minister/rabbi/joboo/whatever running both the church and the country. This backs up my position clearly.
THIS is what he meant by separating church and state. Never intended to be applied in the way it is applied today. Head of church shouldn't also be the leader of the government. Separate away. I'm all for that.
Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom written by Jefferson:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Doesn't that say exactly what I said? You can't be forced to go to church, to tithe, or be punished. Think what you want. Do what you want. Does it say anything about removing Christmas trees from the public square?
Why no. No it does not. I won't burden you with his quotes in the opening paragraph about Almighty God because as any student of history knows, Jefferson had many questions about the veracity of the Bible. As any man with above average intelligence would he saw inconsistencies and human hypocrisy. He doubted -- as do we all. But that didn't stop him from invoking God. Didn't prevent Christian imagery from dominating Washington, didn't keep prayer from opening meetings and sessions. Because he was intelligent. He believed what he wanted and thought we all had the right to do the same.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
-
Maybe in your world and with your interpretations, but since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the 1920's, the Bill of Rights applies to states.
Hugo Black. Interpretation. I don't agree with it and perhaps one day it can be reversed.
Article VI prevents the government from requiring religious tests before a person can take office. If the Constitution's only prohibition against religious involvement by the government was to ban the creation of a U.S. church, then why does this article exist? If the government can, in fact, do whatever it wants in relation to religion other than creating a U.S. church, then how do you explain away the existence of Article VI's last sentence?
It is intended as I've said ALL ALONG. It's not inconsistent. These guys did not want a repeat of the Church of England. You can't have the religious leader also being the head of the government. And I agree with that. If you require a religious test, the church could arrange it so that the only person who could pass would be their hand-picked candidate.
Pretty simple concept and thanks for doing my work for me. Nothing like watching you fall right into proving my point.
The treaty was ratified, unanimously, by many of the same people who drafted the Constitution. It was also chronologically a lot closer in time to the creation of the Constitution, and thus much more likely to have an accurate reflection of what was intended when the Constitution was created.
Don't care. Not in the Constitution and I don't live in Tripoli.
Then surely you've acknowledged that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the U.S. from only creating a government church? Rather, the plain wording of the first amendment prohibits the government from creating any law ("no law") in reference or regard to ("respecting") an establishment of religion.
Word parsing. Who knows what "respecting" meant in 1780 something? The US government can't create a law that relates to establishing a national religion. Bam! It's pretty clear. ESTABLISHING RELIGION means CREATING (or ENDORSING) a government-run church. You know, like he said in Virginia. One that can tax you, coerce you into attending, punish you for not tithing or whatever.
Thanks again for proving my point. Twice in one post. Bizzam! You're hired.
If you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis. I didn't reference the Hugo Black opinion; I referenced Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 Supreme Court case. This opinion stated that Jefferson's comments concerning the separation of church and state "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment." You act as if judges have only been cramming separation of church and state down our throats for the past "40 years" when, in fact, a Supreme Court that was much closer chronologically to the creation of the Constitution stated the same.
Well I was talking about Hugo because that's when shit started to roll downhill.
The 1878 case took the Danbury stuff (without the rest of the historical context) and gave it weight. It was Hugo who jumped on the cart and started to ride. It's with him that I consider the shark jumped in terms of the interpretation of the Amendment.
-
Look at history and forget all the BS that was fed into your brain by liberal professors and left-leaning "legal scholars."
Forget case law -- which is merely people interpreting something that could mean something different to a different group of people -- and look just at the history of this country's beginnings.
Why did the Pilgrims come? Was it because they couldn't have Mosques in England? Because they were pissed at the Royal Lord Rory Moreth for displaying the Ten Commandments in Parliament? No.
What where they escaping? Pilgrims were separatists who wanted to separate from the Church of England and follow the teachings of John Calvin. Puritans followed the Pilgrims. Their goal was to "purify" the church and shed it of Catholic trappings. They were pissed, actually, because they didn't like the way non-Puritans worshiped in England.
So there's the foundation in the 1600s. Second and third generation later, we're writing a breakup letter with England, followed by our New Country resolutions.
When they spoke of not allowing the government to establish a religion, what was their frame of reference? Fleeing the freaking Church of England and breaking away from the other "state" religion, Catholicism.
So you tell me now, it was their intent to ban all public displays of Christianity? I laugh uproariously at your lack of historical reference.
On a side note - Calvinism is one of those things that has made Christianity look bad IMHO. And totally defies Biblical doctrine. It's a philosophy of the naive.
-
On a side note - Calvinism is one of those things that has made Christianity look bad IMHO. And totally defies Biblical doctrine. It's a philosophy of the naive.
Also, Jimmy Swaggert getting caught with that hooker didn't help us much either.
-
On a side note - Calvinism is one of those things that has made Christianity look bad IMHO. And totally defies Biblical doctrine. It's a philosophy of the naive.
Don't disagree. As a Methodist I reject Calvinist theories on predestination, grace and atonement.
That's a different subject for a different debate.
-
Just because there are Jefferson quotes that reference opposition to religious leaders running the country does not mean that this was his only concern relating to religion and government. There are a multitude of quotes that I can reference if you'd like, but it should be relatively clear from a logical standpoint that the existence of Jefferson's statements about religious leaders does not prove the non-existence of Jefferson's statements on other aspects of government involvement with religion.
In regard to Justice Black being vilified as the "shark jumper," you're ignoring your history again. The first case of which I am aware that incorporated any portion of the Bill of Rights on a state level was in 1897. In 1927, another pre-Black opinion specifically incorporated the first amendment. In 1947, an opinion involving Justice Black specifically incorporated the religious portion of the first amendment on the state level. Although there were four dissenters in that opinion, the court actually unanimously agreed that the religious portion of the first amendment should be incorporated on the state level. The disagreement was regarding whether state governments could reimburse religious schools from tax payer dollars. As much as you vilify Justice Black, you should be made aware that he actually upheld the law due to the reimbursements being given to all schools regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Who knows what "respecting" meant in 1780 something?
So, let's get this straight. You want to primarily focus on the plain wording of the Constitution, but then you turn around and say that you don't know what a word meant in the 1700's? How are you supposed to tell anyone what the Constitution means when you essentially just admitted to not knowing the definition of a word used in the Constitution? The moving argument strikes again.
The US government can't create a law that relates to establishing a national religion. Bam! It's pretty clear. ESTABLISHING RELIGION means CREATING (or ENDORSING) a government-run church.
The Constitution does not use the verb "establishing," nor does it refer to the government establishing anything. Rather, it says that no law may be passed respecting an establishment of religion. There is no reference to who established it, or that who established it is even important. Rather, it merely states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion.
In fact, if a law is passed in reference or in regard to an establishment of religion, then this suggests that the establishment already existed in order for the law to reference or be in regard to it. If the amendment was intended to only prevent the government from establishing a U.S. church, then two things would be mentioned.
First, the amendment would mention the fact that the government is prohibited from establishing a U.S. church; there would not be the grammatical implication that the religious institution is already in existence, nor would there be use of the word "respecting" instead of "establishing," "creating," "forming," or something similar to denote that the government is the creator of the establishment.
Second, the amendment would specifically reference that the religious establishment is government controlled/owned/operated, as opposed to the ambiguous wording of "an establishment of religion."
This can be seen by an initial draft of the amendment, which stated, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established . . ." This draft was rejected. Had the establishment of a U.S. church/national religion been the only thing prohibited, then this wording would have survived, as it much more clearly identifies such a specific prohibition.
But the ultimate question here is, "Why?" Let's suppose that the Constitution was only intended to prevent the government from establishing an official religion or a U.S. church. In effect, this would suggest that the government does not have any one specific religion that it would tout, proclaim, or display. So why would the government want or need to have the ability to specifically display the Ten Commandments, a religious set of rules pertaining to only Judeo-Christian religions? Sure, there's a Constitutional right to freely practice whatever religion you want, but that right prevents the government from infringing upon individual freedoms; it does not suggest that the government has the same freedom. And, as mentioned, the government would have no need for that freedom if it is prohibited from having an official or government established religion of its own.
-
You are a historical revisionist of the worst kind.
-
You are a historical revisionist of the worst kind.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Post duly dismissed.
-
Synopsis of this thread: Kaos is in the lead. VV is orating like Charlie Brown's teacher. AUChizad has taken his ball and gone home. Wes is actively looking for law books, since they haven't been cracked open in years. CCTAU is provoking an altercation like a drunk friend in a bar fight. Leonard's loser? The heathens, by a pretty fur piece.
-
Synopsis of this thread: Kaos is in the lead. VV is orating like Charlie Brown's teacher. AUChizad has taken his ball and gone home. Wes is actively looking for law books, since they haven't been cracked open in years. CCTAU is provoking an altercation like a drunk friend in a bar fight. Leonard's loser? The heathens, by a pretty fur piece.
I ain't as good as I once was....
-
Synopsis of this thread: Kaos is in the lead. VV is orating like Charlie Brown's teacher. AUChizad has taken his ball and gone home. Wes is actively looking for law books, since they haven't been cracked open in years. CCTAU is provoking an altercation like a drunk friend in a bar fight. Leonard's loser? The heathens, by a pretty fur piece.
(http://www.troll.me/images2/chucky-brown/fuck-you-im-charlie-brown.jpg)
-
Just because there are Jefferson quotes that reference opposition to religious leaders running the country does not mean that this was his only concern relating to religion and government. There are a multitude of quotes that I can reference if you'd like, but it should be relatively clear from a logical standpoint that the existence of Jefferson's statements about religious leaders does not prove the non-existence of Jefferson's statements on other aspects of government involvement with religion.
Bleeble, booble, goop, ork. You find one, I find one that tacks differently, including in particular a state law he himself wrote and wrote exclusively that supports what I've said from the beginning. Not exactly the "concrete" position you make it out to be. When someone says two things, each of which have different and potentially conflicting meanings you can pick and choose those which only support your argument (as you do) or you can look at the entire body (as I do) and draw conclusions from that.
It's typical lawyer-speak to ignore anything that might be contradictory.
In regard to Justice Black being vilified as the "shark jumper," you're ignoring your history again. The first case of which I am aware that incorporated any portion of the Bill of Rights on a state level was in 1897. In 1927, another pre-Black opinion specifically incorporated the first amendment. In 1947, an opinion involving Justice Black specifically incorporated the religious portion of the first amendment on the state level. Although there were four dissenters in that opinion, the court actually unanimously agreed that the religious portion of the first amendment should be incorporated on the state level. The disagreement was regarding whether state governments could reimburse religious schools from tax payer dollars. As much as you vilify Justice Black, you should be made aware that he actually upheld the law due to the reimbursements being given to all schools regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
Here we are back in case law again. This discussion isn't about case law or how it should be interpreted. What a panel of judges each with their own personal and political agendas determines nearly a hundred years after the fact doesn't sway me. The Supreme Court is not infallible and its politically based rulings can be overturned. Otherwise we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.
So, let's get this straight. You want to primarily focus on the plain wording of the Constitution, but then you turn around and say that you don't know what a word meant in the 1700's? How are you supposed to tell anyone what the Constitution means when you essentially just admitted to not knowing the definition of a word used in the Constitution? The moving argument strikes again.
Facetious. Look up the word.
The Constitution does not use the verb "establishing," nor does it refer to the government establishing anything. Rather, it says that no law may be passed respecting an establishment of religion. There is no reference to who established it, or that who established it is even important. Rather, it merely states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion.
The establishment of is the act of establishing. Your English teacher would be disappointed.
In fact, if a law is passed in reference or in regard to an establishment of religion, then this suggests that the establishment already existed in order for the law to reference or be in regard to it. If the amendment was intended to only prevent the government from establishing a U.S. church, then two things would be mentioned.
First, the amendment would mention the fact that the government is prohibited from establishing a U.S. church; there would not be the grammatical implication that the religious institution is already in existence, nor would there be use of the word "respecting" instead of "establishing," "creating," "forming," or something similar to denote that the government is the creator of the establishment.
Second, the amendment would specifically reference that the religious establishment is government controlled/owned/operated, as opposed to the ambiguous wording of "an establishment of religion."
This can be seen by an initial draft of the amendment, which stated, "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established . . ." This draft was rejected. Had the establishment of a U.S. church/national religion been the only thing prohibited, then this wording would have survived, as it much more clearly identifies such a specific prohibition.
Bleeble, booble, gooble, derp.
The intent of the amendment was to prevent the state from establishing an ruling church body and from passing any laws that would assist in the creation of a ruling church with a priest/pope/jafar as the head of government/religion. To suggest anything else is to ignore every aspect of the founding of this nation.
But the ultimate question here is, "Why?" Let's suppose that the Constitution was only intended to prevent the government from establishing an official religion or a U.S. church. In effect, this would suggest that the government does not have any one specific religion that it would tout, proclaim, or display. So why would the government want or need to have the ability to specifically display the Ten Commandments, a religious set of rules pertaining to only Judeo-Christian religions? Sure, there's a Constitutional right to freely practice whatever religion you want, but that right prevents the government from infringing upon individual freedoms; it does not suggest that the government has the same freedom. And, as mentioned, the government would have no need for that freedom if it is prohibited from having an official or government established religion of its own.
Booble, snargle, lawyer beeble.
Ask the statue of Moses on the Supreme Court building itself. Maybe he knows. Or maybe you think that's the Duck Dynasty guy.
-
Bleeble, booble, goop, ork. You find one, I find one that tacks differently, including in particular a state law he himself wrote and wrote exclusively that supports what I've said from the beginning. Not exactly the "concrete" position you make it out to be. When someone says two things, each of which have different and potentially conflicting meanings you can pick and choose those which only support your argument (as you do) or you can look at the entire body (as I do) and draw conclusions from that.
It's typical lawyer-speak to ignore anything that might be contradictory.
Jefferson is also quoted as saying that "religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god" and that government legislation should "reach actions only, and not opinions" on religion. He also said that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the common law." Jefferson also refused to call for national days of prayer and fasting, which again is a stance that would suggest that the government is prohibited from more than just creating a government religion or U.S. church, but rather should not make any legislation or official acknowledgment of particular religions and religious practices.
He also references religious leaders speaking on political matters as a "breach of contract" because that is not the service for which they are salaried; arguably this quote could be reversed to state that a government's display of religious texts is a "breach of contract" because that is not the service for which government leaders are salaried (government legislation should not "reach" opinions on religion).
In his Notes on the State of Virginia, he states, "Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough . . . without suffering the state to be troubled with it." This is a reference that religion needs no support of any kind from government, not just the establishment of a government church. He continues by stating that state governments such as Pennsylvania and New York had "silence[d] religious disputes" by "tak[ing] no notice of them." Again, a much broader reference that the government should have no hand in endorsing or officially acknowledging religions, not just that they shouldn't create a government church or establish a government religion.
Here we are back in case law again. This discussion isn't about case law or how it should be interpreted.
You're the one who brought up the historically incorrect "facts" that courts have only within the past 40 years relied upon the concept of separation of church and state, and that Justice Black was the start of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights on the state level. My reference to case law was to correct your inaccurate assertions.
Facetious. Look up the word.
Your admission that the statement was facetious further confirms that you ignore arguments to which you can't or don't want to respond. Don't want to address the fact that "respecting" is not synonymous with "establishing?" No problem! Just say bleeble barble gobble cock a few times and make a facetious statement about no one knowing what the word meant in the 1700's; debate won!
The establishment of is the act of establishing. Your English teacher would be disappointed.
If the amendment was meant to ban the establishment of a government religion, then it would more plainly state, "no law establishing a religion." Or, as the initial draft worded it, a prohibition on a "government established religion."
Rather, the wording that was ratified states that no law shall be passed "respecting an establishment of religion." The Methodist Church is an establishment (organization or institution) of religion. No laws may be passed in reference or in regard to an establishment of religion, because it is not the government's place to espouse or favor one establishment over another ("religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god").
Your argument that "establishment" refers to the act of establishing, and not the noun synonymous with organization or institution, would hold more weight if the establishment was specifically identified as the government's establishment, as it was in the initial draft. Otherwise, you've created a situation in which the government can favor or support a particular religious organization through legislation, so long as there was technically no religious establishment made by the government.
The intent of the amendment was to prevent the state from establishing an ruling church body and from passing any laws that would assist in the creation of a ruling church with a priest/pope/jafar as the head of government/religion. To suggest anything else is to ignore every aspect of the founding of this nation.
You do realize that you're just reasserting your conclusion without any further explanation or evidence, right? We already get what you think the intent is...try addressing the arguments made. Namely, the fact that the initial draft specifically prohibiting the creation of a national religion was rejected, and instead was replaced with a more broadly worded phrase that does not specifically refer to a government religion or the government establishing a religion.
Ask the statue of Moses on the Supreme Court building itself. Maybe he knows. Or maybe you think that's the Duck Dynasty guy.
Translation: "I don't know, therefore insert irrelevant nonsense in a snide manner."
-
Translation: "I don't know, therefore insert irrelevant nonsense in a snide manner."
You should really tap out or wave a white flag of something. You're getting mauled here and it's not pretty.
You know Jefferson isn't the alpha and omega here, right? One man among many.
Other than some Bill Clinton-esque twisting of the words "respecting" and "establishment" (which, by the way you've taken directly from subsequent case law, aka fallible opinion, rather than putting those interpretations away and looking for yourself and without prior predjudice at the amendment in the context of history) you've done nothing but toss in later tacked on amendments and external opinions which should never be a considered part of the discussion.
You keep talking about intent but only in the light of later rulings -- which is exactly what I'm arguing. Those rulings are in error.
So until you can square your intent claims with the carving of Moses (or as you probably call him "the Jewish magician) holding *gasp* the Ten Commandments glaring down from the Supreme Court's own edifice your arguments -- while blusteringly verbose -- fail.
-
You know Jefferson isn't the alpha and omega here, right? One man among many.
Which is why I previously quoted Madison, Pinckney, Mason, and Franklin, in addition to pointing out an article of a treaty that was unanimously accepted by the Senate, which included a variety of founders. You're the one who started the focus on Jefferson ("You wanna go Jefferson we can go Jefferson"). Try again.
Other than some Bill Clinton-esque twisting of the words "respecting" and "establishment" (which, by the way you've taken directly from subsequent case law, aka fallible opinion, rather than putting those interpretations away and looking for yourself and without prior predjudice at the amendment in the context of history) you've done nothing but toss in later tacked on amendments and external opinions which should never be a considered part of the discussion.
The definitions came from English dictionaries, not case law. Try again.
You keep talking about intent but only in the light of later rulings -- which is exactly what I'm arguing. Those rulings are in error.
And in light of quotes from founders before, during, and after the creation of the first amendment. As well as in light of a comparison of rejected wording to the wording that was included in the first amendment. Try again.
-
You two
:facepalm:
How's about an agree to disagree like the rest of us did....last week.
-
You two
:facepalm:
How's about an agree to disagree like the rest of us did....last week.
When judging the aptitude of one's ability to agree or disagree last week, I would say that advancements had not yet been made at the time to formally agree to an agreement of disagreement in the light of the historical context that the following week had just commenced and had yet to be determined as concluded; though, in sundry times, I do believe that it is possible to divulge into quite the dialogue of agreeing and disagreeing which ironically can end in a formal yet lighthearted decision to agree to disagree in determining whether one has or can in certain circumstances actually agree to disagree.
-
(http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/haters_fb62b5_2448292.gif)
-
So are the Ten Commandments supposedly too Christian to hang in government buildings?
Or, are they too Judaic to hang in government buildings?
I guess it depends on what IS is!
-
You two
:facepalm:
How's about an agree to disagree like the rest of us did....last week.
He tapped out at least a week ago. Just kicking the corpse now.
-
So, who won?
-
So, who won?
Whatever side you were on at the beginning. As usual.
-
So, who won?
Until one of them can reconcile the Ten Commandments and Moses peering solemnly from the Supreme Court building itself, I think the answer to that is obvious.
-
Until one of them can reconcile the Ten Commandments and Moses peering solemnly from the Supreme Court building itself, I think the answer to that is obvious.
Yeah, I knew you won. I was just seeing if any of them actually believed that they won. I quit reading any of this a long time ago and voted for you regardless of the justifications. Just couldn't bring myself to vote with the gays.
-
Yeah, I knew you won. I was just seeing if any of them actually believed that they won. I quit reading any of this a long time ago and voted for you regardless of the justifications. Just couldn't bring myself to vote with the gays.
Michael Sam hates you.
But he is tolerant of your position!
Go Alabama (the state). Get those Ten commandments back in government building WHERE THEY BELONG!
-
Yeah, I knew you won. I was just seeing if any of them actually believed that they won. I quit reading any of this a long time ago and voted for you regardless of the justifications. Just couldn't bring myself to vote with the gays.
My tongue causes swing votes.
-
Until one of them can reconcile the Ten Commandments and Moses peering solemnly from the Supreme Court building itself, I think the answer to that is obvious.
Yet again, moving argument that winds up being incompatible with your previous argument.
First amendment was submitted in 1789 and ratified in 1791, Supreme Court building was completed in 1935. Maybe you intended to refer to the Moses and Ten Commandments that appear in the U.S. Capitol, but that building was designed in 1793 and not completed until 1811. You argue that subsequent intent shouldn't affect the original intent at the time the first amendment was adopted, but then you point to subsequent actions. Contradictory.
Aside from this, Moses is a historical figure, not solely a religious one. He is viewed as one of the earlier historical "lawgivers," and thus is featured alongside other religious and non-religious figures who were lawgivers in a historical context, including Confucius, Solon, Hammurabi, Pope Innocent III, and even Suleiman I, a *gasp* Muslim.
I am not aware of any display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court or U.S. Capitol that lists the commandments themselves. Rather, there is a symbolic depiction of two tablets with Roman numerals I - X. These tablets appear in many different places, including on a frieze in the Supreme Court's courtroom itself. The frieze's designer, Adolph Weinman, has a letter on file with the Supreme Court archives which indicates that those tablets refer to the Bill of Rights.
Furthermore, there are also documents on file in the Supreme Court archives which indicate that architect Cass Gilbert instructed Adoplh Weinman to "choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building," hence the selection of a variety of historical lawgivers, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds.
But even if any of those images of tablets could be construed so as to refer to the Ten Commandments (such as the tablets that appear directly with Moses), there is no quotation of the Biblical contents of those tablets. Instead, there is only an image of tablets with Roman numerals on them, and thus no direct reference to religious commandments themselves, but rather a contextual reference to one of the first sets of laws created. The intentional absence of the actual text of each commandment in combination with the presence of other lawgivers suggests that no religious reference was intended to be displayed or conveyed.
-
I thought we had already agreed upon a winner. So, is it going to be the last word now?
-
I thought we had already agreed upon a winner. So, is it going to be the last word now?
Word.
-
You boys are gonna' piss off Hitler.
Don't piss off Hitler.
-
Until one of them can reconcile the Ten Commandments and Moses peering solemnly from the Supreme Court building itself, I think the answer to that is obvious.
It usually just ends in the opposition admitting that they can no longer beat their head against the immovable wall of Kaos and just giving up for the futility of it all.
Does not make the shouter a winner by any logical measure. He just wins the war of attrition.
-
It usually just ends in the opposition admitting that they can no longer beat their head against the immovable wall of Kaos and just giving up for the futility of it all.
Does not make the shouter a winner by any logical measure. He just wins the war of attrition.
Winning is winning.
White flags are white flags.
-
Yet again, moving argument that winds up being incompatible with your previous argument.
First amendment was submitted in 1789 and ratified in 1791, Supreme Court building was completed in 1935. Maybe you intended to refer to the Moses and Ten Commandments that appear in the U.S. Capitol, but that building was designed in 1793 and not completed until 1811. You argue that subsequent intent shouldn't affect the original intent at the time the first amendment was adopted, but then you point to subsequent actions. Contradictory.
Aside from this, Moses is a historical figure, not solely a religious one. He is viewed as one of the earlier historical "lawgivers," and thus is featured alongside other religious and non-religious figures who were lawgivers in a historical context, including Confucius, Solon, Hammurabi, Pope Innocent III, and even Suleiman I, a *gasp* Muslim.
I am not aware of any display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court or U.S. Capitol that lists the commandments themselves. Rather, there is a symbolic depiction of two tablets with Roman numerals I - X. These tablets appear in many different places, including on a frieze in the Supreme Court's courtroom itself. The frieze's designer, Adolph Weinman, has a letter on file with the Supreme Court archives which indicates that those tablets refer to the Bill of Rights.
Furthermore, there are also documents on file in the Supreme Court archives which indicate that architect Cass Gilbert instructed Adoplh Weinman to "choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building," hence the selection of a variety of historical lawgivers, both of religious and non-religious backgrounds.
But even if any of those images of tablets could be construed so as to refer to the Ten Commandments (such as the tablets that appear directly with Moses), there is no quotation of the Biblical contents of those tablets. Instead, there is only an image of tablets with Roman numerals on them, and thus no direct reference to religious commandments themselves, but rather a contextual reference to one of the first sets of laws created. The intentional absence of the actual text of each commandment in combination with the presence of other lawgivers suggests that no religious reference was intended to be displayed or conveyed.
TL;DR
All I got out of those was "surrender"
-
TL;DR
All I got out of those was "surrender"
I just think it's an amazing feat that he is able to learn this much information while keeping up his busy lifestyle of pleasing multiple big black menz nightly. It's a busy life for him. Kudos.
-
I just think it's an amazing feat that he is able to learn this much information while keeping up his busy lifestyle of pleasing multiple big black menz nightly. It's a busy life for him. Kudos.
He is well versed. And takes every chance to show it.
-
I just think it's an amazing feat that he is able to learn this much information while keeping up his busy lifestyle of pleasing multiple big black menz nightly. It's a busy life for him. Kudos.
My pleasin' skills are such that it doesn't take long to go through 10 black menz.
-
My pleasin' skills are such that it doesn't take long to go through 10 black menz.
Vandy's love of the black cocks....something I think we can all agree is a fact. No opinions needed.