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.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    But you would actually provide a link, no?
    I would. Luckily it's not hard to find one. You could have done it yourself if you were inclined.
    You mean like.... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… ?
    No, not like that. The Tennessee one explicitly refers to God.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      No, not like that. The Tennessee one explicitly refers to God.

      But rights don't come the Constitution, they come from God. As the Founders said. And what Tennessee is doing is not unusual:



      Alabama

      That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Arizona

      We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

      California

      We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

      Connecticut

      The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government.

      Delaware

      Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition...

      Florida

      We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty

      Idaho

      We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom

      There are more in the link...


      https://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        But rights don't come the Constitution, they come from God. As the Founders said.
        Exactly... the Constitution doesn't confer rights; rather, it protects the rights we inherently have. Roy seems to have a really hard time with that concept.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Yeah, I guess you would know better than the women themselves, seer.
          That women are often remorseful of their decision to abort their baby is hardly controversial. For instance, back in 1992 the Journal of Social Issues devoted an entire issue to the psychological effects of abortion that an overview of the contributors’ papers resulted in the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, matter-of-factly concluding "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion." Over a quarter century later the medical literature has greatly increased and Wilmoth's conclusion has become even more robustly corroborated.

          For instance, the distinguished professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Dr. Brenda Major conducted a study in 2000 which found that two years after having aborted their baby roughly 28% of American women believed that their abortion did more harm than good.

          A 2013 study by Curley and Johnston of U.S. and Canadian female students found all women with a history of abortion had elevated trauma scores on the Impact of Events Scale and perinatal grief on the Perinatal Grief Scale three years after the abortion, with approximately half of them desiring treatment for it.

          Also in 2013, Bowling Green State University professor of Human Development and Family Studies Priscilla K. Coleman published a study in the British Journal of Psychiatry which concluded that "women who had undergone abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems."

          And last year Dr. David C. Reardon conducted an in-depth examination of all the previous literature reviews regarding mental health effects associated with legal abortion published since 2005 and found that

          both sides agree that (a) abortion is consistently associated with elevated rates of mental illness compared to women without a history of abortion; (b) the abortion experience directly contributes to mental health problems for at least some women

          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)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            I would. Luckily it's not hard to find one. You could have done it yourself if you were inclined.
            I was not.

            No, not like that. The Tennessee one explicitly refers to God.
            And, in the quote below....

            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            You mean like.... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… ?
            To whom do you think the founders were referring? Where do you think they got that?

            (And, in cause you're unaware, that's directly from the Declaration of Independence, and is a critical part of the founding of our nation)
            Last edited by Cow Poke; 09-20-2019, 02:12 PM.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Often implies not always.
              Indeed there are a few judicial conservatives who are anything but originalists and are just as much of the activist non-originalist (is their a synonym for originalist?) mentality as a substantial number of their liberal counterparts. But they are rare enough to be pretty much considered an anomaly.

              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)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                That's probably true. If so -- if that really is the original intent, or the "originalist" reading -- then things like the First Amendment and the "no religious test" clause in the main body of the Constitution really don't preclude, e.g., outlawing the practice of Islam, or prohibiting Muslims from serving in government.

                I don't think I'm comfortable with that.
                Let's look back at what Oxmixmudd write:

                "I tend to think no establishment of religion referred more to the idea of what would today call a christian denomination. That is, they would not want the us government establishing the FCC, or the presbyterians as the official faith of the USA,"

                I'm confused as to how you reach that conclusion from his statement. Oxmixmudd is referring to the Establishment Clause here. It is true that the Establishment Clause does not prevent outlawing the practice of Islam, but I don't think anyone sensible would claim that the Establishment Clause prevents the government from outlawing a religion--it's the Free Exercise Clause that does that. Similarly, the Establishment Clause is separate from the No Religious Text Clause. Something being allowed by one clause doesn't mean another clause can't outlaw it. It's like saying "the Seventeenth Amendment doesn't outlaw slavery, so slavery is legal!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Exactly... the Constitution doesn't confer rights; rather, it protects the rights we inherently have. Roy seems to have a really hard time with that concept.
                  So did Thomas Jefferson with his “separation between church and state”and which has been ruled upon as such by subsequent courts.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                    That's probably true. If so -- if that really is the original intent, or the "originalist" reading -- then things like the First Amendment and the "no religious test" clause in the main body of the Constitution really don't preclude, e.g., outlawing the practice of Islam, or prohibiting Muslims from serving in government.

                    I don't think I'm comfortable with that.
                    Interesting. You are looking at is as a means to prohibit, and I am looking at it as a means to allow.

                    Jim
                    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      So did Thomas Jefferson with his “separation between church and state”and which has been ruled upon as such by subsequent courts.
                      And, as usual, you will Tassmanipulate that into something it clearly was not. Context is important, little one.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        And, as usual, you will Tassmanipulate that into something it clearly was not. Context is important, little one.
                        The context is clear, that there was to be a separation between church and state. It wasn't fully applied at the time because there were mainly only differing christian sects as has been mentioned, just as the "all men are created equal" clause in the DoI wasn't fully applied because slaves were not considered fully human. And again, James Madison himself, the main architect of the Constitution, warned against the mingling of government and religion even though, to some extent, like slavery itself, it continued to occur at the time.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          The context is clear, that there was to be a separation between church and state. It wasn't fully applied at the time because there were mainly only differing christian sects as has been mentioned, just as the "all men are created equal" clause in the DoI wasn't fully applied because slaves were not considered fully human. And again, James Madison himself, the main architect of the Constitution, warned against the mingling of government and religion even though, to some extent, like slavery itself, it continued to occur at the time.
                          The Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, outside of whatever force you ascribe to its declaration of secession itself. Phrases like "all men are created equal", while nice sentiments, have no legal force whatsoever. The Declaration of Independence's primary purpose was, aside from declaring independence, to try to convince the other colonists that doing so was a good idea. It was never meant to "apply" to laws of the United States. Trying to use it as any kind of legal document is foolhardy.

                          For that matter, the issue of whether slaves counted as humans was irrelevant to the question of the constitutionality of slavery. In fact, to this day, slavery is constitutional under certain circumstances. Don't believe me? Read the Thirteenth Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            The context is clear, that there was to be a separation between church and state. It wasn't fully applied at the time because there were mainly only differing christian sects as has been mentioned, just as the "all men are created equal" clause in the DoI wasn't fully applied because slaves were not considered fully human. And again, James Madison himself, the main architect of the Constitution, warned against the mingling of government and religion even though, to some extent, like slavery itself, it continued to occur at the time.
                            What the Sam Thunder does this even mean, "the DoI wasn't fully applied"? That's NUTS!

                            As Terraceth points out, it wasn't law - it was a DECLARATION which appealed to the Providence of God for protection, because they knew that the very declaration was an act of war, and they could lose EVERYTHING....
                            " — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

                            The CONTEXT was that Tassman brought up the concept of "separation between church and state", which came from the letter Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in January, 1802.

                            The concern of the Danbury Baptist Association was that there would be a "state religion", like they had just rejected in their war for independence.

                            Jefferson was assuring them there would not be a "state religion" -

                            “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.”


                            If you want to understand the meaning of the answer, you really need to look at the QUESTION that is being answered.

                            From the Danbury Baptist Association's letter....

                            But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.


                            Their concern was that laws would be made to govern the kingdom of Christ. Jefferson was answering that concern.

                            THAT is the context.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              And, as usual, you will Tassmanipulate that into something it clearly was not.
                              And, as usual, you will cowpoke into non-specific vagueness.

                              “The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

                              “As president, he [Jefferson] discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state”.

                              https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                And, as usual, you will cowpoke into non-specific vagueness.

                                “The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: Separation of church and state

                                “As president, he [Jefferson] discontinued the practice started by his predecessors George Washington and John Adams of proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state”.

                                https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
                                Right and Jefferson was one man and his separation of church and state has no force in law. And your link is right Connecticut is my state, and we had a Church tax, to support the state Church. State supported churches lasted into the 1830s. They simply fell by the way side, not because they violated the Establishment Clause.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X