One Nation Under God

[FredFlash]

Dude...did you return here just to stir up this stuff?

BTW...that "wall of seperation" does not exist in the Constitution. Never has.

What is your definition of "wall of separation?"

That line was taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury(?) Baptists during his presidency.

We're talking about an intellectual concept, not the name which many assign to it. The principle of no union of church and state is gathered from the words of the U. S. Constitution, not the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

The whole "separation of church and state" argument is built upon that one sentence in a personal letter...

Where did you get such a silly idea?

 

[Gonz]

What words in the Constitution do you read to say that the U.S. is a Christian nation?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They sure as hell weren't talking about Allah.

 

[Gato_Solo]

What is your definition of "wall of separation?"

There is no such wall implicit in the Constitution. You seem to have a problem grasping that concept.

We're talking about an intellectual concept, not the name which many assign to it. The principle of no union of church and state is gathered from the words of the U. S. Constitution, not the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

The words of the constitution state, and I'll quote them for you

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.

Source...

Where does it state that there is to be a wall of seperation? It merely states that the government cannot establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion. Everything you just said is . If there is such an amendment I ask you to show it, with a source to back it up.

Where did you get such a silly idea?

You're the one talking about a 'wall of seperation' between church and state'. I ask you to back your claim. I backed up mine above...

 

[FredFlash]

They sure as hell weren't talking about Allah.

The DOI was not adopted by the American people as a constitution of government; and how do you know what God they were referring to?

 

[FredFlash]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlash What is your definition of "wall of separation?"

There is no such wall implicit in the Constitution. You seem to have a problem grasping that concept.

I read you to say that you are unable or unwilling to provide us with the intellectual content of the idea you have assigned the symbols “wall of separation” to. It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with one whose words have no meaning.

 

[Gonz]

It is the baseline document of our independence. It has no legal weight but it is an indicator of uur principles.

read The Federalist Papers. It's eye opening.

 

[Gonz]

I read you to say that you are unable or unwilling to provide us with the intellectual content of the idea you have assigned the symbols “wall of separation” to. It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with one whose words have no meaning.

Since you are unable, or unwilling, to back your claim, I'd say you were the one failing to provide intellectual content.

I can provide the case & context of the Supreme Court Ruling in which you infer. HAve you actually read it? Do you also understand the inherent weakness of the ruling in a government with threee equal branches?

 

[FredFlash]

Originally Posted by FredFlash We're talking about an intellectual concept, not the name which many assign to it. The principle of no union of church and state is gathered from the words of the U. S. Constitution, not the letters of Thomas Jefferson.

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.

Did your educators fail to properly instruct you regarding the Constitutional fundamentals of limited government, enumerated powers and the non-delegation of jurisdiction over the people's religion?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredFlash What is your definition of "wall of separation?"

Thats my contention...that no such wall exists.

I read you to say that you are unable or unwilling to provide us with the intellectual content of the idea you have assigned the symbols “wall of separation” to. It is difficult to have an intelligent discussion with one whose words have no meaning.

Nice dodge, but no dice. My definition has no bearing upon this discussion, since I'm not the one arguing that such a wall exists. I'm stating that the constitution does not implicitly forbid the practice of religion by or for its citizens on any property...private or public. Those that petitioned the courts to remove prayer from schools used that line about a 'wall of seperation' in their arguments in order to further their cause of removing any semblence of religion from public life. You wish to move the argument from a debate on the constitutionality of such seperation to a definition of a wall because you can only cast dispersions upon my intelligence and not my argument. I submit to you that you have no basis to question my intelligence on this, as you have obviously not done your own homework if you must drag down my statement with 'minutiae'.

 

[Gonz]

Did your educators fail to properly instruct you regarding the Constitutional fundamentals of limited government...

Are you willing to take this to its, and my, logical conclusion? If it's not specifically enumerated or addressed, it's not allowed.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Did your educators fail to properly instruct you regarding the Constitutional fundamentals of limited government, enumerated powers and the non-delegation of jurisdiction over the people's religion?

Nope. But your educators seemed to have failed to properly instruct you on reading comprehension...


BTW...thats two attacks upon my intellect and none, so far, on my argument.

 

[FredFlash]

Where does it state that there is to be a wall of separation? It merely states that the government cannot establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of any religion.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to create the idea or principle of separation of church and state. Instead, the 1st Amendment reinforced the meaning of the separation of church and state principle as it was embodied in the unamended constitution.

In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder religion.
As Madison said: "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."

Matters of religion were off limits to the federal government, but the drafters of the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state ratifying conventions of the built-in constitutional safeguards. Because some felt that clauses such as the Constitution's "elastic clause" might enable a future Congress to circumvent the "no power" over religion directive, Madison drafted and submitted the additional constitutional constraints that eventually became the religious clauses of the our 1st Amendment.

The proper way to understand the religious clauses of the 1st amendment is to realize that they did not create anything, they only strengthened what had already been created and embodied in the unamended constitution.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The purpose of the 1st Amendment was not to create the idea or principle of separation of church and state. Instead, the 1st Amendment reinforced the meaning of the separation of church and state principle as it was embodied in the unamended constitution.

In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder religion.
As Madison said: "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."

Matters of religion were off limits to the federal government, but the drafters of the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state ratifying conventions of the built-in constitutional safeguards. Because some felt that clauses such as the Constitution's "elastic clause" might enable a future Congress to circumvent the "no power" over religion directive, Madison drafted and submitted the additional constitutional constraints that eventually became the religious clauses of the our 1st Amendment.

The proper way to understand the religious clauses of the 1st amendment is to realize that they did not create anything, they only strengthened what had already been created and embodied in the unamended constitution.

Nice cut and paste. I read that, in its entirety, on another website. Please put the source down before you get us into trouble...or would you like me to do it for you?

 

[FredFlash]

I can provide the case & context of the Supreme Court Ruling in which you infer.

What case are you talking about, Senior; and why?

Do you also understand the inherent weakness of the ruling in a government with three equal branches?

What ruling, Buckaroo?

 

[Gato_Solo]

What case are you talking about, Senior; and why?



What ruling, Buckaroo?

You wouldn't happen to be raysavage from Chron-Watch, would you?

 

[Gonz]

What case are you talking about, Senior; and why?

What ruling, Buckaroo?

Another fine example of the educati0n system.

Are you willing to take this to its, and my, logical conclusion? If it's not specifically enumerated or addressed, it's not allowed.

I got my answer.

...as it was embodied in the unamended constitution.

Thanks for playing.

 

[FredFlash]

...the constitution does not implicitly forbid the practice of religion ...for its citizens

Where does the U. S. Constitution grant the government authority to exercise the people's religion on their behalf; is the government going to be there when they have to account to God for their faith; and is it even possible for one to delegate his duties to the Creator, to others?

...the constitution does not implicitly forbid the practice of religion by or for its citizens on any property...private or public.

The Constitution forbids civil authority over religion. I view the issue from the perspective of the Jeffersonians.

Those that petitioned the courts to remove prayer from schools

Who petitioned to remove prayer from schools? Please show us the petitions, if such actually exist.

used that line about a 'wall of seperation' in their arguments

Please show us their arguments.

in order to further their cause of removing any semblance of religion from public life.

Show me where they petitioned for the removal of "any semblance of religion from public life." Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting the content of the petitions.

 

[FredFlash]

Are you willing to take this to its, and my, logical conclusion? If it's not specifically enumerated or addressed, it's not allowed.

I agree that the people granted the U. S. Government no authority whatsoever over their religious sentiments or their manner of rendering homage to the Creator whose son, the Lord Jesus Christ, forbids us to render unto Caesar what belongs to God.

 

[Leslie]

This looks like a job for Pedantic Man!

 

[Gato_Solo]

The Constitution forbids civil authority over religion. I view the issue from the perspective of the Jeffersonians.

Then why all the fuss when the people wish to display a religious symbol on public property? A Christmas tree, for instance (even though the tree has nothing to do with Christmas)?

Who petitioned to remove prayer from schools? Please show us the petitions, if such actually exist.

So you never heard of the Supreme Case ruling prohibiting teacher-led prayers from schools? Before you jump on that bait, remember...teachers are citizens, too.

Show me where they petitioned for the removal of "any semblance of religion from public life." Unless, of course, you are misrepresenting the content of the petitions.

You sure are stuck in minutiae, aren't you? Nobody petitioned that, but thats the way it seems every year around December 25th. You must be a lawyer or summat to twist meanings like that. If you are, its to be expected. A lawyers job is to get his client off by exploiting loopholes in the law, if available, or creating loopholes if necessary. Note...this has nothing to do with guilt or innocence...