Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Ok, it's official. You're high.
Ok, it's official. You're high.
Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says Americans
- Thread starter FredFlash
- Start date
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
…it is contended that the (so-called) concluding clause of the Constitution does most expressly recognize the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus. The clause is in these words: "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, & " Now I remark, in the first place, that manifestly this clause forms no part of the Constitution as adopted by the PEOPLE. It is merely an attesting clause adopted by the Convention that framed the instrument; the People did not adopt the attesting clause of the Convention. But, still further, the words in the year of our Lord, formed no part of the clause as adopted by the Convention. Madison, in his Minutes of the Convention, gives the clause as adopted, in this abbreviated form, "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of December, &. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names." [See Elliott's Debates, Vol. 1., p. 317 (Madison's Minutes); also, Vol. V., p. 555 (Madison's Debates).]
-- Title: Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States.: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873. With an account of the origin and progress of the movement. Author: National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; Collection: Making of America Books
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...01;didno=ahm4062.0001.001;view=image;seq=0035
…the Constitution does most expressly recognize the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus. NOT!
…it is contended that the (so-called) concluding clause of the Constitution does most expressly recognize the sovereignty of the Lord Jesus. The clause is in these words: "Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, & " Now I remark, in the first place, that manifestly this clause forms no part of the Constitution as adopted by the PEOPLE. It is merely an attesting clause adopted by the Convention that framed the instrument; the People did not adopt the attesting clause of the Convention. But, still further, the words in the year of our Lord, formed no part of the clause as adopted by the Convention. Madison, in his Minutes of the Convention, gives the clause as adopted, in this abbreviated form, "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the 17th of December, &. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names." [See Elliott's Debates, Vol. 1., p. 317 (Madison's Minutes); also, Vol. V., p. 555 (Madison's Debates).]
-- Title: Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States.: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873. With an account of the origin and progress of the movement. Author: National Convention to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; Collection: Making of America Books
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...01;didno=ahm4062.0001.001;view=image;seq=0035
Look Bob...sorry, Fred...I'm on your side except for your interpretations. Congress has no authority to make a law giving, or taking away, religion in the public forum. It also does not have, nor does any other branch of the Federal government, authority to deny people the right to practice their religion freely unpon government land.
Placing a cross or a menorah or any other symbol upon teh public right of way is not establishing religion. Get over it.
Placing a cross or a menorah or any other symbol upon teh public right of way is not establishing religion. Get over it.
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
You don't fool me! "Religion in the public forum" is Counterfeit Christan" code for "civil authority over religion."
According to your sill interpretation of the word "religion" in the First Amendment, we have no right to exercise religion, unless of course it is the officially established religion of land.
Anything can be an establishment of religion if it constitutes an assumption of authority by civil government over the people's duty to their Creator.
You don't fool me! "Religion in the public forum" is Counterfeit Christan" code for "civil authority over religion."
According to your sill interpretation of the word "religion" in the First Amendment, we have no right to exercise religion, unless of course it is the officially established religion of land.
Anything can be an establishment of religion if it constitutes an assumption of authority by civil government over the people's duty to their Creator.
Allowing Bobs Babes & Boobs to put a cross in Central Park for Christmas hardly constitutes establishment.
No sir, that would be your choice of smoke I believe.
Sumbitch, I know Counterfeit Christian Code & was unaware of it. Why didn't somebody (besides minkey, he knows everything) tell me?
Freddy said:
No sir, that would be your choice of smoke I believe.
Sumbitch, I know Counterfeit Christian Code & was unaware of it. Why didn't somebody (besides minkey, he knows everything) tell me?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
You use those terms a lot. Care to explain what you're trying to say?
If you have a serious problem with context, that is...
The state never defined the word religion. It has been taken to mean any religion...to include satanism, btw. You are trying to pervert what he said into something you want to hear.
Where does this fit in with a display of religion on public land?
If the people want to express their religion on public land, the state has no right to say no. That goes against the first amendment.
You use those terms a lot. Care to explain what you're trying to say?
FF said:
If you have a serious problem with context, that is...
The state never defined the word religion. It has been taken to mean any religion...to include satanism, btw. You are trying to pervert what he said into something you want to hear.
FF said:
Where does this fit in with a display of religion on public land?
If the people want to express their religion on public land, the state has no right to say no. That goes against the first amendment.
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
The Supreme Court, in the case of Reynolds v. U. S. (1878), adopted, or at least cited with approval, the definition of the word "religion" used by James Madison's in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 when it wrote,
The Reynolds Court apparently subscribed to the Rules of Constitutional Interpretation promulgated by Justice Joseph Story in 1833 , in Chapter 5 of Book 2 of his "Commentaries on the Constitution", which advise that:
The best "subject-matter", with reference to which the word "religion" was used, and explicitly defined, was, according to the Reynolds Court, James Madison's famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785. There were other writings on the subject of religious liberty, prior to the framing of the First Amendment, that also used the word "religion" and explicitly defined it as Mr. Madison did in his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Reynolds v. U. S. (1878), adopted, or at least cited with approval, the definition of the word "religion" used by James Madison's in his famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785 when it wrote,
Mr. Madison prepared a "Memorial and Remonstrance," which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html
The Reynolds Court apparently subscribed to the Rules of Constitutional Interpretation promulgated by Justice Joseph Story in 1833 , in Chapter 5 of Book 2 of his "Commentaries on the Constitution", which advise that:
§ 397. IN our future commentaries upon the constitution we shall treat it, then, as it is denominated in the instrument itself, as a CONSTITUTION of government, ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity. 1 They have declared it the supreme law of the land. They have made it a limited government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of certain powers, and reserved all others to the states or to the people. It is a popular government. Those who administer it are responsible to the people. It is as popular, and Just as much emanating from the people, as the state governments. It is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. It may be altered, and amended, and abolished at the will of the people. In short, it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people. 2
§ 398. In this view of the matter, let us now proceed to consider the rules, by which it ought to be interpreted; for, if these rules are correctly laid down, it will save us from many embarrassments in examining and defining its powers. Much of the difficulty, which has arisen in all the public discussions on this subject, has had its origin in the want of some uniform rules of interpretation, expressly or tacitly agreed on by the disputants. Very different doctrines on this point have been adopted by different commentators; and not unfrequently very different language held by the same parties at different periods. In short, the rules of interpretation have often been shifted to suit the emergency; and the passions and prejudices of the day, or the favour and odium of a particular measure, have not unfrequently furnished a mode of argument, which would, on the one hand, leave the constitution crippled and inanimate, or, on other hand, give it an extent and elasticity, subversive of all rational boundaries.
§ 399. Let us, then, endeavour to ascertain, what are the true rules of interpretation applicable to the constitution; so that we may have some fixed standard, by which to measure its powers, and limit its prohibitions, and guard its obligations, and enforce its securities of our rights and liberties.
§ 400. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. 3 He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application. 4
§ 401. Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation. It is only, when there is some ambiguity or doubt arising from other sources, that interpretation has its proper office. There may be obscurity, as to the meaning, from the doubtful character of the words used, from other clauses in the same instrument, or from an incongruity or repugnancy between the words, and the apparent intention derived from the whole structure of the instrument, or its avowed object. In all such cases interpretation becomes indispensable.
§ 398. In this view of the matter, let us now proceed to consider the rules, by which it ought to be interpreted; for, if these rules are correctly laid down, it will save us from many embarrassments in examining and defining its powers. Much of the difficulty, which has arisen in all the public discussions on this subject, has had its origin in the want of some uniform rules of interpretation, expressly or tacitly agreed on by the disputants. Very different doctrines on this point have been adopted by different commentators; and not unfrequently very different language held by the same parties at different periods. In short, the rules of interpretation have often been shifted to suit the emergency; and the passions and prejudices of the day, or the favour and odium of a particular measure, have not unfrequently furnished a mode of argument, which would, on the one hand, leave the constitution crippled and inanimate, or, on other hand, give it an extent and elasticity, subversive of all rational boundaries.
§ 399. Let us, then, endeavour to ascertain, what are the true rules of interpretation applicable to the constitution; so that we may have some fixed standard, by which to measure its powers, and limit its prohibitions, and guard its obligations, and enforce its securities of our rights and liberties.
§ 400. I. The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the intention of a law is to be gathered from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the reason and spirit of the law. 3 He goes on to justify the remark by stating, that words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument; that illustrations may be further derived from the subject-matter, with reference to which the expressions are used; that the effect and consequence of a particular construction is to be examined, because, if a literal meaning would involve a manifest absurdity, it ought not to be adopted; and that the reason and spirit of the law, or the causes, which led to its enactment, are often the best exponents of the words, and limit their application. 4
§ 401. Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising on them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation. It is only, when there is some ambiguity or doubt arising from other sources, that interpretation has its proper office. There may be obscurity, as to the meaning, from the doubtful character of the words used, from other clauses in the same instrument, or from an incongruity or repugnancy between the words, and the apparent intention derived from the whole structure of the instrument, or its avowed object. In all such cases interpretation becomes indispensable.
The best "subject-matter", with reference to which the word "religion" was used, and explicitly defined, was, according to the Reynolds Court, James Madison's famous Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785. There were other writings on the subject of religious liberty, prior to the framing of the First Amendment, that also used the word "religion" and explicitly defined it as Mr. Madison did in his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785.
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
That all depends on the facts of the case. The fundamental principle, as regards the liberty of religion, is, or at least should be, "religion, or the duty which we owe to the Creator, is exempt from the cognizance of civil government."
If a civil authority permits groups of all religious viewpoints, including non-believers, to express their views on public land, I see no problem. The government must allow the expression of all religious views, or none at all.
That all depends on the facts of the case. The fundamental principle, as regards the liberty of religion, is, or at least should be, "religion, or the duty which we owe to the Creator, is exempt from the cognizance of civil government."
If a civil authority permits groups of all religious viewpoints, including non-believers, to express their views on public land, I see no problem. The government must allow the expression of all religious views, or none at all.
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
What, pray tell, is an atheistic Christmas Symbol? How about Hindu? Would there be reason to be disgusted & offended by Islamic Easter eggs?
What, pray tell, is an atheistic Christmas Symbol? How about Hindu? Would there be reason to be disgusted & offended by Islamic Easter eggs?
2minkey
bootlicker
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
yeah, but your moot and my moot are different. i'm saying, hey, if they were mostly christians, that's fine, but i don't think its the center of gravity of relevance here. how profoundly does religion impact basic questions of human rights, for instance? well, okay, the quakers. but still, they aren't necessarily all that tightly linked. sorry for the example, but hitler professed catholicism. which means christian. at least to some. to me, basic ideas about humans rights belong to "anyone who is not an asshole."
the magna carta most certainly was an influence, but the spirit of the age - all that "age of reason" shit - was very much responsible for pushing along the ideas that made der USA. not anything specifically christian. but certainly not anything inconsistent with a christian who isn't an asshole.
here's an interesting link...
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/index.htm
It does matter to a certain point, i.e. where do your values come from. While it can be argued to no end whether the values brought about were based on Judeo-Christianity or not, the fact that most, if not all, of the founding fathers belonged to a Judeo-Christian religion kinda makes the point moot.I also don't believe for one minute that FredFlash is responsible for more than 10% of what he writes...
As for the constitution itself, I thought it was a direct outgrowth/evolution of the Magna Carta...
yeah, but your moot and my moot are different. i'm saying, hey, if they were mostly christians, that's fine, but i don't think its the center of gravity of relevance here. how profoundly does religion impact basic questions of human rights, for instance? well, okay, the quakers. but still, they aren't necessarily all that tightly linked. sorry for the example, but hitler professed catholicism. which means christian. at least to some. to me, basic ideas about humans rights belong to "anyone who is not an asshole."
the magna carta most certainly was an influence, but the spirit of the age - all that "age of reason" shit - was very much responsible for pushing along the ideas that made der USA. not anything specifically christian. but certainly not anything inconsistent with a christian who isn't an asshole.
here's an interesting link...
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/index.htm
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Who determines who's an asshole & who isn't?
I can promise you without doubt that beardofpants & I will find few people whom we both agree. My list & hers will be far different. SO which of us is right?
Basic human rights extend to anyone who isn't a child molester...is that better?
Who determines who's an asshole & who isn't?
I can promise you without doubt that beardofpants & I will find few people whom we both agree. My list & hers will be far different. SO which of us is right?
Basic human rights extend to anyone who isn't a child molester...is that better?
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Thanks for the link. Interesting claims, but little evidence presented to support them.
Thanks for the link. Interesting claims, but little evidence presented to support them.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Which illustrates my point quite nicely. There is a story posted here about a school teaching children about Islam, but not allowing Christianity to be taught. There is another story here about a man handing out bibles on a public sidewalk next to a school being arrested. You make the claim about seperating church and state and "Counterfeit Christians", but your statements seem to say something totally different.
As long as I'm posting, look up the statement Judeo-Christian.
Which illustrates my point quite nicely. There is a story posted here about a school teaching children about Islam, but not allowing Christianity to be taught. There is another story here about a man handing out bibles on a public sidewalk next to a school being arrested. You make the claim about seperating church and state and "Counterfeit Christians", but your statements seem to say something totally different.
As long as I'm posting, look up the statement Judeo-Christian.
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Show us evidence to support your claim that the school forbids teaching about Christianity.
Was he also selling illegal drugs?
What statements?
What statement?
Show us evidence to support your claim that the school forbids teaching about Christianity.
Was he also selling illegal drugs?
What statements?
What statement?
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
Isn't that a large part of your entire crusade? The evidence is abundant. You'll find plenty of articles in this forum.
Isn't that a large part of your entire crusade? The evidence is abundant. You'll find plenty of articles in this forum.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Re: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says America
He seems to want to deny any evidence that runs counter to his personal claims. I'm through talking to him, as even flavio would respond to a direct question from time to time...
He seems to want to deny any evidence that runs counter to his personal claims. I'm through talking to him, as even flavio would respond to a direct question from time to time...
you have no evidence that the school forbids teaching about Christianity.
I read you to say that you have no evidence that the school forbids teaching about Christianity. I suspect you just pulled it out of your butt.
I read you to say that you have no evidence that the school forbids teaching about Christianity. I suspect you just pulled it out of your butt.