Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Is it legal because the government says so?
Collapse
X
-
Once again you ignore what was written choosing to respond to what you would like to have read. For all of the prior history of the United States the Establishment Clause was understood just the opposite of what the liberal biased court of today decided. They did not interpret but reversed the actual meaning of the whole thing. That is why I called it activism. They simply made a new set of rules whole cloth. This is not the role of the Supreme Court. They are to defend the Constitution, not change it.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostOnce again you ignore what was written choosing to respond to what you would like to have read. For all of the prior history of the United States the Establishment Clause was understood just the opposite of what the liberal biased court of today decided. They did not interpret but reversed the actual meaning of the whole thing. That is why I called it activism. They simply made a new set of rules whole cloth. This is not the role of the Supreme Court. They are to defend the Constitution, not change it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostBecause establishing "In God We Trust" as a national motto counts. Because all of the "we haven't established it but we're clearly following a single religion" is close enough to count. That's what I mean by letter of the law and not spirit of the law, and even the letter is questionable.
You're crossing who you're talking to. I haven't said anything about a letter. There is a difference, however, between stating intent (which the letter is used to support) and stating beliefs (which the DoI uses).
That doesn't make it ok. Slavery was allowed by the US Government before there was a US Government, too. That's not a useful metric for anything. The point remains that what you try to pass off as a 'recent kick' has a basis. It's not just people suddenly getting uppity about things.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostBut that's not what happened. The Supreme Court accepted Jefferson's interpretation of the Establishment Clause as a valid interpretation...several times. It may just as easily have not accepted it as valid and disregarded the letter, but it didn't.
A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.
Comment
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What a moron. It says that congress cannot make a law to establish religion. It says nothing about not having religion in congress or the government. They just can't make any laws establishing a state religion. They can't create a "Church of America" or some such and make it the official national religion. That is all it says. It also can't make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The exact same wording is used for freedom of speech. It says that congress cannot pass any laws abridging the freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that you can't have freedom of speech in government, does it? There isn't a "wall of separation" between free speech and government is there?Last edited by Sparko; 03-27-2017, 09:26 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat is exactly what happened. They decided that Jefferson's letter was what the first amendment meant. They let a personal letter determine the meaning of a constitutional amendment.
A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postcounts as what? what point are you trying to make? You seem to be arguing that God is still in the government and should be, yet saying the opposite.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe point of the DOI is that the founding fathers felt that God was important enough to base an argument for human rights on. Which is the basis of rebelling and starting a new government. God was central to the forming of the US Government. They would not reject God in the constitution. They were protecting worship by making sure that the government could never force a specific religion on the people like England did. They had no intention of keeping religion out of government. They appealed to God all the time in their speeches, in congress which opened with prayer, in their letters and everyday lives. All this "no religion in government" crap IS indeed a "recent kick" invented by liberals and atheists.
A lot of this 'intention' doesn't hold when you look at the beliefs they actually held (and the knowledge that 'deist' or 'agnostic' didn't really exist as terms, let alone something people identified as). Jefferson is the one that rewrote the gospels without all the supernatural/divinity stuff in it, after all.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostI'm not sure how you get "and should be" from what I've said. The point I'm making is that "under God" and "In God we trust" may not be violations in the strictest sense, but they are quite clearly violations of the intent.
There's a significant difference between "we base our beliefs on" and "we base our legal system on". I agree that they're protecting worship, but if the intent was to keep God (Christian, mind) in the system, they still failed.
A lot of this 'intention' doesn't hold when you look at the beliefs they actually held (and the knowledge that 'deist' or 'agnostic' didn't really exist as terms, let alone something people identified as). Jefferson is the one that rewrote the gospels without all the supernatural/divinity stuff in it, after all.
They didn't go around saying "you know we need to keep God in the government so lets make up some mottos and stuff" - they just naturally ASSUMED God was part of their government and didn't think anything about it. They never thought "hey you know what? one day there will be a lot of atheists and liberals around trying to remove God from our government, so maybe we should make it clear that we expect God to be part of the government by writing some letters"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThe point I'm making is that "under God" and "In God we trust" may not be violations in the strictest sense, but they are quite clearly violations of the intent.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat is exactly what happened. They decided that Jefferson's letter was what the first amendment meant. They let a personal letter determine the meaning of a constitutional amendment.
A President's opinion on a constitutional amendment should not be the standard by which the constitution is interpreted. That would mean any President can just decided what the constitution means.
Comment
-
Tassman, you are not even American, you have no idea what this country is or our constitution. Please stick to Australian politics. Government interferes with the freedoms of others by its very existence. So do people. You cannot even exist without interfering in the lives of others unless you are a hermit living on the top of a mountain in tibet. Just being an American citizen allows you to have the freedom to interfere with others. The constitution limits how much the government can interfere with you. And lets it create laws that set the ground rules for individuals interacting with each other, and limits creating laws in other instances.
That is what the first amendment does: It LIMITS the Federal government from creating a state religion, or creating any laws that interfere with religious freedom, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It does not give the government any powers at all. It limits their power. It does NOT limit the people's power or freedom. It insures it.
Yes, there are laws that stop a person from having their religion from harming others. Like if you religion says you have to eat children, you would be prevented from doing so because it interferes with the other person's right to live, which trumps the right to eat them. But there are NO laws or anything in the constitution that prevents religion in the government. The wall is one way. Heck, the President gets sworn in on a bible!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassmanwhich gives the likes of Kim Davis the right to break the law on the basis of her religious beliefs.
This is not considered a problem.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
12 responses
41 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 09:30 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
10 responses
29 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 09:33 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
53 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:06 AM
|
41 responses
181 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:33 AM
|
Comment