The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[seer]

Again, no answer just opinion.

[shunyadragon]

Really Tass, where did the founders say that the government could not prefer one religion over another (apart from establishment)? They did just the opposite and did favor the Christian religion both on the Federal and State level. Your idea is a recent legal invention by radical courts.



http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

Yes, it has taken several hundred years to separate religion (Christianity) from government, but we have made progress even though there is more work to do. We are not living in a pre-1800 America.

[seer]

Yes, it has taken several hundred years to separate religion (Christianity) from government, but we have made progress even though there is more work to do. We are not living in a pre-1800 America.

Well yes, having destroyed the meaning and intent of the Constitution I guess you can do anything...

[shunyadragon]

Well yes, having destroyed the meaning and intent of the Constitution I guess you can do anything...

The Christian institutions that try to impose a religious agenda in American Laws definitely try to do many things unconstitutional

[seer]

The Christian institutions that try to impose a religious agenda in American Laws definitely try to do many things unconstitutional

That is a lie, it is not unconstitutional according to the men that actually wrote the Constitution. And having the Ten Commandments on state property is not imposing anything on anyone. It is a granite stone with writing on it - it harms no one and forces no one - and it points to a historical reality.

[shunyadragon]

That is a lie, it is not unconstitutional according to the men that actually wrote the Constitution. And having the Ten Commandments on state property is not imposing anything on anyone. It is a granite stone with writing on it - it harms no one and forces no one - and it points to a historical reality.

Thomas Jefferson and the evolution of the Constitution:

Source: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Thomas Jefferson and the evolution of the Constitution:

Source: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-jefferson-memorial

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816.

© Copyright Original Source

So what is your point? That is why the Founders gave us the amendment process so we could change the Constitutions - not that courts had the right to ignore the meaning and intent of the Founders.

Besides, the people would have no problem with it:

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a monument to the Ten Commandments should be displayed on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol building. While the court hasn't made a decision about this case yet, the public certainly has. When asked in a Feb. 25-27 Gallup Poll* if the Supreme Court should or should not allow the display in Texas, 76% of Americans say the display should be allowed, compared with 21% who say it should not.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9391/Amer...s-Symbols.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15817/Ame...mandments.aspx

So the American population would approve of keeping the Ten Commandments. So as Jefferson suggests, we should listen to the people.

[shunyadragon]

So what is your point? That is why the Founders gave us the amendment process so we could change the Constitutions - not that courts had the right to ignore the meaning and intent of the Founders.

Besides, the people would have no problem with it:



So the American population would approve of keeping the Ten Commandments. So as Jefferson suggests, we should listen to the people.

Constitutional Justice and Law are not popularity contests. Did the majority of the citizens of the South supporting slavery and white supremacy make it right.

[seer]

Constitutional Justice and Law are not popularity contests. Did the majority of the citizens of the South supporting slavery and white supremacy make it right.

That is not the point. First you quoted Jefferson which points to the mores of a society - well this society is overwhelming in favor of the Ten Commandments. So I have popular opinion on my side. And I also have the Constitution on my side as it was intended. You have courts that ignored the original meaning and ignored the intent of the Founders. You have lawlessness.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point. First you quoted Jefferson which points to the mores of a society - well this society is overwhelming in favor of the Ten Commandments. So I have popular opinion on my side. And I also have the Constitution on my side as it was intended. You have courts that ignored the original meaning and ignored the intent of the Founders. You have lawlessness.

It is the point of your previous post. You advocated polls or poularity as grounds for what is Constitutional.

[seer]

It is the point of your previous post. You advocated polls or poularity as grounds for what is Constitutional.

No Homer - I advocate for what the Constitution meant by the Founders. You are the one who brought Jefferson in "new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also." And you are the one who ignores what the Founders intended.

[shunyadragon]

Did Adam's believe that Christian principles were key to Independence? Yes or no?

General principle common to all beliefs.

Did Adams and the other founders believe our rights came from God - yes or no?

Not all did, at minimum Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ethan Allen did not

[seer]

General principle common to all beliefs.

What did Adams say?

Not all did, at minimum Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ethan Allen did not

Who wrote this: 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

[Littlejoe]

As far as I have been able to find in my sources. Congress passed the treaty, and the President signed it in 1797 English with Article 11 as worded. The web site referenced includes the original version as I cited. It is true that later treaties signed did change Article 11, and used it give clarification on slavery issues.

Yes, but the reason it was ratified as is, probably had to do with the fact that the round trip alone there and back would take at least 2 months, then "renegotiate the treaty" meanwhile, US ships are being looted by state sponsored piracy of the Barbary Coast. Congress felt it more important to protect it's shipping, and the profit there in than to quibble over those words...but as pointed out, the language was removed from subsequent treaties.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but the reason it was ratified as is, probably had to do with the fact that the round trip alone there and back would take at least 2 months, then "renegotiate the treaty" meanwhile, US ships are being looted by state sponsored piracy of the Barbary Coast. Congress felt it more important to protect it's shipping, and the profit there in than to quibble over those words...but as pointed out, the language was removed from subsequent treaties.

I believe subsequent treaties were subject to further negotiations, and a different emphasis on the problems of slavery. Article 11 was not reworded, it was completely changed to address a different issue.