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

  • #61
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Death of the humor center of the brain is one of the most distinctive and deleterious effects of TDS.
    Cognitive dissonance is right up there with it.
    Last edited by rogue06; 09-16-2019, 02:51 PM. Reason: Edited rather than quoted. Original restored

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      That is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.

      So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.
      Well, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with. It's about seperation of church/religion and state. But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Well, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with.
        False, even the men that created the First Amendment use tax monies to support the Christian religion. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html



        It's about seperation of church/religion and state.

        There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of Church and state.


        But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?

        Nope, neither Islam or Voodoo have any historical or moral or philosophical link to the Founding.
        Last edited by seer; 09-16-2019, 09:37 AM.
        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


        • #64
          Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
          Well, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with. It's about seperation of church/religion and state. But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?
          Sorry, but our Founding Fathers were devout Christian men who openly practiced their religion even as politicians. Go read George Washington's address to the Delaware Nation and tell me that our Founders believed in "separation of church and state". The only prohibition is against the government from making laws that establish or prohibit religious practices.

          And if a community erected a Muslim or Voodoo monument outside of a courthouse, I wouldn't be happy, and I think a good case could be made against it based on America's history and traditions, but I would have no legal grounds to object.
          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Cognitive dissonance is right up there with it.
            True. Nice own goal, Jim.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              Thereby changing the laws (plural) by removing a law (singular).
              That's simply not how it works, Roy. Congress can change laws. SCOTUS can challenge or invalidate them. If SCOTUS invalidates a law, it is up to the Congress to revise it, or recognize it no longer applies.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Well, the Supreme Court has ruled against you! Had the Founders wanted government to have anything to do with religion, they wouldn't have added the first amendment to begin with. It's about seperation of church/religion and state. But we know that if it were Muslim or Voodoo monuments in court houses, you'd be defending that as well, correct?
                Jimmy, the First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of Church and State". It has a "prohibition" clause, as well as an "establishment" clause, which you anti-Christian bigots always overlook:

                “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.”


                (I bolded the pertinent part just for you)

                Thomas Jefferson dealt with this issue in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.

                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 ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ 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

                source


                Jefferson was assuring the congregation that the federal government could not interfere with their church or offer special favors to any particular sect.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  That's simply not how it works, Roy. Congress can change laws. SCOTUS can challenge or invalidate them. If SCOTUS invalidates a law, it is up to the Congress to revise it, or recognize it no longer applies.
                  Laws are challenged in the Supreme Court, not by the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS invalidates a challenced law as unconstitutional, then it's invalidated, kaput! Congress can revise and re-enact a new version of the law if they so choose, because that's what they do, but the original law is no longer law.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    Laws are challenged in the Supreme Court, not by the Supreme Court. If SCOTUS invalidates a challenced law as unconstitutional, then it's invalidated, kaput! Congress can revise and re-enact a new version of the law if they so choose, because that's what they do, but the original law is no longer law.
                    You are talking about leftists courts who did not follow the Constitution. Take School prayer - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A School district is not Congress, nor does the School district made law.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Jimmy, the First Amendment says nothing about "the separation of Church and State". It has a "prohibition" clause, as well as an "establishment" clause, which you anti-Christian bigots always overlook:
                      It doesn't need spell out everything if it makes clear the intent, CP, just as Jefferson made clear in the below letter to the Danbury Baptists.
                      “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.”


                      (I bolded the pertinent part just for you)

                      Thomas Jefferson dealt with this issue in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.

                      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 ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ 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

                      source


                      Jefferson was assuring the congregation that the federal government could not interfere with their church or offer special favors to any particular sect.
                      He was assuring them that the government would have nothing to do with religion, thus building a wall between church and state. I bolded the pertinent part just for you.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Laws are challenged in the Supreme Court, not by the Supreme Court.
                        EXCELLENT clarification, Jimmy! And that challenge has to be brought by a party who actually has legal standing before the court.

                        If SCOTUS invalidates a challenced law as unconstitutional, then it's invalidated, kaput!
                        Actually, SCOTUS can strike down certain aspects of a law.

                        Congress can revise and re-enact a new version of the law if they so choose, because that's what they do, but the original law is no longer law.
                        OR, particular aspects or sections of a law are no longer law.

                        See, Roy? Even your Jimmy disputes your notion that SCOTUS can change laws.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You are talking about leftists courts who did not follow the Constitution. Take School prayer - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A School district is not Congress, nor does the School district made law.
                          Public schools are government schools and the government is seperate from religion. Anyone who wants to is free to pray wherever and whenever they want to, but a public school is not a religious intitution.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Public schools are government schools and the government is seperate from religion. Anyone who wants to is free to pray wherever and whenever they want to, but a public school is not a religious intitution.
                            Nope Jim, the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law. So is the school district Congress? Did it make a law? You are the one ignoring what thee text actually says. And BTW - we had voluntary prayer when I was in School - no ones hair caught on fire.
                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              He was assuring them that the government would have nothing to do with religion, thus building a wall between church and state. I bolded the pertinent part just for you.
                              That was his opinion to the Danbury Baptist Association in response to their query about a "state Church", Jimmy. They constituted in 1790 out of concern that their RELIGIOUS LIBERTY was threatened by the rule of law of the Calvinist Protestants, who had founded the colony. That was the purpose of the letter to Jefferson. Consequently, in 1818, the state did away with its "official religion" - the government could no longer exercise control over the religious liberties of its citizenry.

                              From Politico....

                              On Feb. 10, 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing Jefferson’s views, defined the reach of “separation of church and state” under the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for a 5-4 majority in Everson v. Board of Education, held that “neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church,” adding:

                              “Neither [entity] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

                              “No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.”

                              Neither a state nor the federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between Church and State.’”


                              See, Jimmy? The issue was about keeping the State out of Church business.
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                You still didn't answer to the substance of Jims post. That Trumps request for Russian help was just sarcasm is a subjective belief which of course is the stance his supporters would adopt, but regardless, that doesn't speak to the gist of his post. Trump is an authoritarian who is abusing his office, diregarding the Constitution and undermining democracy here and around the world. He's Putin's boy!
                                I actually backed up my "subjective belief" with facts. You know, those things that you rarely provide to substantiate your claims and get all upset when others do provide them. Yeah, those things.

                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 11:32 AM
                                0 responses
                                5 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 09:11 AM
                                0 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 07:28 AM
                                1 response
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:44 AM
                                13 responses
                                40 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, Today, 06:17 AM
                                5 responses
                                31 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Faber
                                by Faber
                                 
                                Working...
                                X