seagoblin333
Member
Compact Theory of the States anyone?
Separation of church and state?
- Thread starter stdreb27
- Start date
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2611607
Actually, the "liberal left" doesn't need the 10 commandments to tell us not to steal or kill people. We have a conscience.....
Again Suzy, that argument will hold a lot more water once your party quits supporting Abortion.
http:///forum/post/2611607
Actually, the "liberal left" doesn't need the 10 commandments to tell us not to steal or kill people. We have a conscience.....
Again Suzy, that argument will hold a lot more water once your party quits supporting Abortion.
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2612039
Again Suzy, that argument will hold a lot more water once your party quits supporting Abortion.
And I bet you support the death penalty
http:///forum/post/2612039
Again Suzy, that argument will hold a lot more water once your party quits supporting Abortion.
And I bet you support the death penalty
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612059
And I bet you support the death penalty
There is a difference in killing an INNOCENT PERSON vs ending the life of a murderer.
When are the libs going to be as concerned for human life as they are for a seal?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2611193
Oscar: That might be a good argument, if only states that followed religious tenets weren't the greatest violators of human freedom and well being (Iran, Syria, Afganastan, Spain (historical), England (historical), and many other western European countries. If you doubt this, ask the Africans and American indigenous peoples what was done to them to "teach" them to be good citizens of the conquering theocracy. You can't rely on human beings to resist the slippery slope - you have to prevent them from getting on it at all! This is not to imply that the lessons of religion, well used, aren't important and valuable in the social contract, only that government has to keep its hands strictly out of religion because there really isn't any in between.
Getting into a little of christian theology, that is generally accepted. God wants to give you a choice to follow him. (hence the garden of eden with a tree of knowledge of good and evil) so when people try to convert people without a choice then they are off the reservation.
"hands strictly out of religion"
I agree, but not religion out of government.
http:///forum/post/2611193
Oscar: That might be a good argument, if only states that followed religious tenets weren't the greatest violators of human freedom and well being (Iran, Syria, Afganastan, Spain (historical), England (historical), and many other western European countries. If you doubt this, ask the Africans and American indigenous peoples what was done to them to "teach" them to be good citizens of the conquering theocracy. You can't rely on human beings to resist the slippery slope - you have to prevent them from getting on it at all! This is not to imply that the lessons of religion, well used, aren't important and valuable in the social contract, only that government has to keep its hands strictly out of religion because there really isn't any in between.
Getting into a little of christian theology, that is generally accepted. God wants to give you a choice to follow him. (hence the garden of eden with a tree of knowledge of good and evil) so when people try to convert people without a choice then they are off the reservation.
"hands strictly out of religion"
I agree, but not religion out of government.
jmick
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2612147
There is a difference in killing an INNOCENT PERSON vs ending the life of a murderer.
When are the libs going to be as concerned for human life as they are for a seal?
What percentage of those on death row do you think could be innocent? Also, do you support executing the mentally ill or handicapped? What do you think about the half of million Iraqis who have died since the war began?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2612152
Getting into a little of christian theology, that is generally accepted. God wants to give you a choice to follow him. (hence the garden of eden with a tree of knowledge of good and evil) so when people try to convert people without a choice then they are off the reservation.
"hands strictly out of religion"
I agree, but not religion out of government.
So you agree with me then. If Christianity says that God "wants to give you a choice to follow him" then it follows logically that God does not want any government to embrace any aspect of religion, since that would coerce people to follow that religion, diluting the choice.
http:///forum/post/2612152
Getting into a little of christian theology, that is generally accepted. God wants to give you a choice to follow him. (hence the garden of eden with a tree of knowledge of good and evil) so when people try to convert people without a choice then they are off the reservation.
"hands strictly out of religion"
I agree, but not religion out of government.
So you agree with me then. If Christianity says that God "wants to give you a choice to follow him" then it follows logically that God does not want any government to embrace any aspect of religion, since that would coerce people to follow that religion, diluting the choice.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612162
What percentage of those on death row do you think could be innocent? Also, do you support executing the mentally ill or handicapped? What do you think about the half of million Iraqis who have died since the war began?
I think that's a completely bogus number not backed up by any credible sources...
http:///forum/post/2612162
What percentage of those on death row do you think could be innocent? Also, do you support executing the mentally ill or handicapped? What do you think about the half of million Iraqis who have died since the war began?
I think that's a completely bogus number not backed up by any credible sources...
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2612956
So you agree with me then. If Christianity says that God "wants to give you a choice to follow him" then it follows logically that God does not want any government to embrace any aspect of religion, since that would coerce people to follow that religion, diluting the choice.
Geridoc, that's not your original argument. You said it's against the Constitution. What we're trying to point out is that it is not.
http:///forum/post/2612956
So you agree with me then. If Christianity says that God "wants to give you a choice to follow him" then it follows logically that God does not want any government to embrace any aspect of religion, since that would coerce people to follow that religion, diluting the choice.
Geridoc, that's not your original argument. You said it's against the Constitution. What we're trying to point out is that it is not.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613100
Geridoc, that's not your original argument. You said it's against the Constitution. What we're trying to point out is that it is not.
And I remain with my original point - that the constitution permits either all religions, or none, but it may not select a single one, nor permit a single one to promote it's agenda on the government's dime. I was only responding to stdreb27's specific comment that seemed to justify government non-involvement in religion as a theological rather than a political issue.
http:///forum/post/2613100
Geridoc, that's not your original argument. You said it's against the Constitution. What we're trying to point out is that it is not.
And I remain with my original point - that the constitution permits either all religions, or none, but it may not select a single one, nor permit a single one to promote it's agenda on the government's dime. I was only responding to stdreb27's specific comment that seemed to justify government non-involvement in religion as a theological rather than a political issue.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613111
And I remain with my original point - that the constitution permits either all religions, or none, but it may not select a single one, nor permit a single one to promote it's agenda on the government's dime. I was only responding to stdreb27's specific comment that seemed to justify government non-involvement in religion as a theological rather than a political issue.
Then again I would ask where in the Constitution is this stated?
http:///forum/post/2613111
And I remain with my original point - that the constitution permits either all religions, or none, but it may not select a single one, nor permit a single one to promote it's agenda on the government's dime. I was only responding to stdreb27's specific comment that seemed to justify government non-involvement in religion as a theological rather than a political issue.
Then again I would ask where in the Constitution is this stated?
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613218
Then again I would ask where in the Constitution is this stated?
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
http:///forum/post/2613218
Then again I would ask where in the Constitution is this stated?
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2611186
If you believe that then please explain why secular nations such as Japan and many European countries have much lower crime rates? If you really believe you need god and or religion to teach people right from wrong then you have a very low opinion of your fellow man or you are deluded.
I am sure if I dig enough I can find all the stats and proof I need to prove that non christain or secular nations have less crime and are just as moral if not more so.
Urban blight caused by the great society programs removing responsibility and consequnce of actions from individuals.
You can also throw in most elective abortions done for removal of the consequences of "the act". ( there's your right to life again).
http:///forum/post/2611186
If you believe that then please explain why secular nations such as Japan and many European countries have much lower crime rates? If you really believe you need god and or religion to teach people right from wrong then you have a very low opinion of your fellow man or you are deluded.
I am sure if I dig enough I can find all the stats and proof I need to prove that non christain or secular nations have less crime and are just as moral if not more so.
Urban blight caused by the great society programs removing responsibility and consequnce of actions from individuals.
You can also throw in most elective abortions done for removal of the consequences of "the act". ( there's your right to life again).
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613242
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
I guess the 10th ammendment is out then too. Since we are looking at national heath care which is clearly NOT an enumerated power, and should lie with the states.
http:///forum/post/2613242
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
I guess the 10th ammendment is out then too. Since we are looking at national heath care which is clearly NOT an enumerated power, and should lie with the states.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2613362
I guess the 10th ammendment is out then too. Since we are looking at national heath care which is clearly NOT an enumerated power, and should lie with the states.
I am certainly not a lawyer, and this may be too simplistic, but isn't there a clause in the Preamble to the effect that the Constitution is to"..promote the general welfare..". Seems to me that national health care could well come in under that clause as an enumerated power, but I'd like to hear from a constitutional lawyer about that.
http:///forum/post/2613362
I guess the 10th ammendment is out then too. Since we are looking at national heath care which is clearly NOT an enumerated power, and should lie with the states.
I am certainly not a lawyer, and this may be too simplistic, but isn't there a clause in the Preamble to the effect that the Constitution is to"..promote the general welfare..". Seems to me that national health care could well come in under that clause as an enumerated power, but I'd like to hear from a constitutional lawyer about that.
reefraff
Active Member
Put 5 constitutional scholars in the room and you will get 5 different answers.
One problem the government is going to run into should the people in this country be so foolish as to elect people who want to socialize our healthcare is what about a state like Mass. that already have a state ran healthcare system? That might actually bring the tenth amendment argument into play if the feds were to attempt to force their socialized heath care ayatem on them.
One problem the government is going to run into should the people in this country be so foolish as to elect people who want to socialize our healthcare is what about a state like Mass. that already have a state ran healthcare system? That might actually bring the tenth amendment argument into play if the feds were to attempt to force their socialized heath care ayatem on them.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613242
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
Please quote the First Amendment where it is clearly stated.
Jefferson, in 1789, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, are not part of the Constitution.
You said the Constitution called for Seperation of Church and State and I've yet to see that.
http:///forum/post/2613242
Aside from the first amendment, where it is as clearly stated as it can be, Jefferson referred to the clean wall between church and state, that has been the basis (at least in part) for Supreme Court Decisions since at least 1879. Unless every Supreme Court in the last 130 years was composed of the dreaded "activist judges", it is pretty clear that the Constitution and it's interpretations by the Supreme Court support a clear line of distinction between the government and religion. Once that principle is established, all else follows under such a legal doctrine.
Please quote the First Amendment where it is clearly stated.
Jefferson, in 1789, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, are not part of the Constitution.
You said the Constitution called for Seperation of Church and State and I've yet to see that.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613504
Please quote the First Amendment where it is clearly stated.
Jefferson, in 1789, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, are not part of the Constitution.
You said the Constitution called for Seperation of Church and State and I've yet to see that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
http:///forum/post/2613504
Please quote the First Amendment where it is clearly stated.
Jefferson, in 1789, and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, are not part of the Constitution.
You said the Constitution called for Seperation of Church and State and I've yet to see that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613546
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
Jefferson was one out of how many who wrote the document? It was never intended for the government to be isolated from religion as the left falsely portrays, it was not to allow it to take control of religion.
http:///forum/post/2613546
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
Jefferson was one out of how many who wrote the document? It was never intended for the government to be isolated from religion as the left falsely portrays, it was not to allow it to take control of religion.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613546
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
Placing a nativity scene, in the public square, to celebrate a Federal Holiday, in no way constitutes "making a law respecting the establishment of religion".
I stand by my point; The Constitution in no way calls for Seperation of Church and State. If it did the founding fathers would not have had a chaplain or prayed before Congressional sessions... I also find it curious that the founding members of Congress would elect a "chaplain" if they believed the still wet ink on the Constitution called for a Seperation of Church and State. They first voted for a Chaplain in May of 1789.... http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html
http:///forum/post/2613546
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That seems like a pretty bright line to me. The Supreme Court justices frequently refer to the extrsaconstitutional writings of the framers to ascertain "original intent", which, I believe, is what was done in this case. The judicial rulings of the Supremes are part of the body of law which adjudicates disagreements under the Constitution.
Placing a nativity scene, in the public square, to celebrate a Federal Holiday, in no way constitutes "making a law respecting the establishment of religion".
I stand by my point; The Constitution in no way calls for Seperation of Church and State. If it did the founding fathers would not have had a chaplain or prayed before Congressional sessions... I also find it curious that the founding members of Congress would elect a "chaplain" if they believed the still wet ink on the Constitution called for a Seperation of Church and State. They first voted for a Chaplain in May of 1789.... http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html