They Are Going After The Churches:

[seer]

And Virginia didn't have one because of Jefferson, who was the main influence on the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. He wrote the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom:

Right, and that was Jefferson's opinion. Not the opinion of all the Founders who ratified the Constitution. Many of whom did establish such Churches.

If a state has an official religion then the 1st amendment is almost meaningless. I would be forced to support a religion I have no control in. It's big government in its worst form.

No it is not, since that did not establish a National church as Madison first penned.

Well, this is not covered directly in the Constitution as far as I know. We have things like the Civil Rights Act.

Right, there is no such Constitutional mandate, and your position violates the Founding principle of freedom of assembly, the freedom to only interact with those you choose. Whether in your personal or business life.

freedom of assembly definition

The right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. Freedom of peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Your answer is utter nonsense. I explicitly stated Madison wrote the first amendment, not Jefferson, but you only read what you want to read.

My mistake, I apologize.

[Mountain Man]

Agreed. That ignores the point. Guns were for well regulated militias.

If you knew what a militia was then you would understand why this argument doesn't help your cause. But you're a bit of moron, so I don't expect you to understand this at all.

[Sparko]

Oh you conveniently leave out the part you don't recognize. Seems like you're a hypocrite to me.

no dipwad. The reason for the PEOPLE to have weapons is to form a militia. It doesn't say that only the militia can have weapons. It says the people have to be allowed to have weapons so they can form a militia if they need to. derp.

[Sparko]

Dividing them up was the whole point. That's what a voting block is. Voting blocks do not mean every one votes the same way, it means tendencies among them to vote a certain way. Did you really think I was trying to say that non-religious people outnumber all religious people? Only a fool would interpret me that way. And they are not arbitrarily divided up. They are divided up based on denomination. I should have figured a retard like you wouldn't get it. Next time I will try to remember the intellect on this site is jr high school level.

so all the non-religious will vote similarly. right. no matter if they are republican, democrat, libitarian, white, black, yellow, rich, poor, etc.

Yeah good luck with that block.

[Cow Poke]

Agreed. That ignores the point. Guns were for well regulated militias.

Nope. Guns were for people who may end up in a well regulated militia. Currently, we don't need 'militias', but that's subject to change. We need citizens with guns to make up those militias, should they become necessary, and I have the experience to make ours "well regulated".

[Cow Poke]

Look back at my other post. You know where it is.

Not playing that game. What I have written, I have written!

[The Thinker]

Nope. "Well regulated militias" were the reason given for "the people" to have weapons in their homes. If there needed to be a "call up", they didn't want the additional time and expense of issuing weapons. They could easily add 'non members' as needed.

Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of 'the Minutemen'.

Oh so you have to explain it further instead of just taking the text literally. That's my point. The text doesn't explain it all, they all need further elaboration. I'm doing the exact same thing with the 1st amendment. Personally, I have no problem with individuals owning guns, but the 2nd amendment isn't clear on that. When reading it at face value, it reads that guns are for people in well regulated militia. You cannot do the same thing with the 1st amendment.

[The Thinker]

Right, and that was Jefferson's opinion. Not the opinion of all the Founders who ratified the Constitution. Many of whom did establish such Churches.

Jefferson's opinion matters on how to interpret the 1st amendment, since he inspired the final writing of it. That's how the Supreme Court decides on matters related to disagreements on it.

No it is not, since that did not establish a National church as Madison first penned.

It doesn't matter. My tax dollars would still have to support a state church.

Right, there is no such Constitutional mandate, and your position violates the Founding principle of freedom of assembly, the freedom to only interact with those you choose. Whether in your personal or business life.

You can do all those things in your personal life, but not if you have a business that serves the general public. If it weren't for that all over the South there would still be signs in front of businesses saying "No niggers allowed."

My mistake, I apologize.

You're forgiven. We all make mistakes. Well, except Trump. He's perfect.

[The Thinker]

so all the non-religious will vote similarly. right. no matter if they are republican, democrat, libitarian, white, black, yellow, rich, poor, etc.

Yeah good luck with that block.

Yes. Non-religious people are vote similarly. They are overwhelmingly pro-marriage equality and pro-choice, and they support keeping religion out of government in some of the highest numbers. In other words, many of them vote the opposite of the way White Evangelical Protestants vote.

[Cow Poke]

...I'm doing the exact same thing with the 1st amendment.....

No, you're totally ignoring one of the clauses, and forcing your own interpretation. That is intellectual dishonesty.

[Sparko]

Oh so you have to explain it further instead of just taking the text literally. That's my point. The text doesn't explain it all, they all need further elaboration. I'm doing the exact same thing with the 1st amendment. Personally, I have no problem with individuals owning guns, but the 2nd amendment isn't clear on that. When reading it at face value, it reads that guns are for people in well regulated militia. You cannot do the same thing with the 1st amendment.

no silly

that is just how you read it. it is very clear that the people's right to bear arms shall not be abridged because a militia needs well armed people. and if you knew anything about militias they are formed when needed from a pool of ordinary citizens, who need guns. Only you have a hard time grasping that.

[Sparko]

Yes. Non-religious people are vote similarly. They are overwhelmingly pro-marriage equality and pro-choice, and they support keeping religion out of government in some of the highest numbers. In other words, many of them vote the opposite of the way White Evangelical Protestants vote.

lol, you keep telling yourself that. the only thing they have in common is not going to church. That is like saying the biggest voting block in the country is people who don't wear ties and they all will vote the same against big business.

[seer]

You can do all those things in your personal life, but not if you have a business that serves the general public. If it weren't for that all over the South there would still be signs in front of businesses saying "No niggers allowed."

Well no freedom of association is no where limited to your personal life, it encompasses all associations. There is no Constitutional mandate where one man is forced to serve or associate with another man whether in business or not. That is a recent legal invention which steps on all kinds of freedoms - including religious.

You're forgiven. We all make mistakes. Well, except Trump. He's perfect.

Well I'm glad we agree on something!

[stfoskey15]

This longish article suggests that religious freedom is an evolving tradition and that people have had various opinions of it over time. It seems that opposition to state established churches grew rapidly shortly after the Constitution.

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/...199329175-e-29

see? I was right. You think the founding fathers were idiots. And you have no idea about why the states currently do have to abide by the First Amendment when they didn't used to. This is good. Very entertaining. carry on.

Wouldn't that be the Fourteenth Amendment?

[NorrinRadd]

The Bill of Rights is an addition to the Constitution, and the only place "religion" is mentioned in the BoR is to limit it. This is the Constitution.

You really are pretty thick, aren't you? Amendments to the Constitution ARE parts of the Constitution. THAT is the proper sense in which the Constitution is a "living" document -- NOT by jurists, legislators, and bureaucrats trying to reshape or circumvent the parts they don't like. If the populace as a whole agrees with the libs and prefers religious speech be constrained by "hate speech" standards, fine: Amend the Constitution accordingly. If the populace as a whole comprises a bunch of gun-fearing pansies, fine: Revoke the Second Amendment.