“Justice Sunday II”

[Back]

DeLay joins rally aimed at shaping court debate (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8950293/)
GOP lawmaker tells 'Justice Sunday II' that judges should not make laws


“All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes,” DeLay told the crowd. “The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress.”

Roberts’ views on judicial activism are under scrutiny by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Republicans are heartened by Roberts, who sits on the federal appeals bench, remarking that judges should interpret the law, not make law. Democrats, fearful of a high-court reversal on abortion, like that Roberts sees precedent playing an “important role in promoting the stability of the legal system.”

Ok, this is seriously starting to freak me out. How is this different than the Iraqi’s outmoded views vs. women? How is this progress? Our government was set up with three branches to maintain a check and balance system and now DeLay wants to step in and have it all controlled by Congress?

The republicans won. Ok, we got it. What is this need for total and absolute control? Does it freak anyone else out that the religious extremists of this country are trying to push their values on everyone else?

[Latrinsorm]

Dobson is the only guy proposing a change from the Constitutional system. You can rip into him all you want. DeLay's position is solidly founded in the Constitution.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Backlash
DeLay joins rally aimed at shaping court debate (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8950293/)
GOP lawmaker tells 'Justice Sunday II' that judges should not make laws


“All wisdom does not reside in nine persons in black robes,” DeLay told the crowd. “The Constitution is clear on the point that the power to make laws is vested on Congress.”

Roberts’ views on judicial activism are under scrutiny by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Republicans are heartened by Roberts, who sits on the federal appeals bench, remarking that judges should interpret the law, not make law. Democrats, fearful of a high-court reversal on abortion, like that Roberts sees precedent playing an “important role in promoting the stability of the legal system.”

Ok, this is seriously starting to freak me out. How is this different than the Iraqi’s outmoded views vs. women? How is this progress? Our government was set up with three branches to maintain a check and balance system and now DeLay wants to step in and have it all controlled by Congress?

The republicans won. Ok, we got it. What is this need for total and absolute control? Does it freak anyone else out that the religious extremists of this country are trying to push their values on everyone else?
Hes right judges arent there to make laws and thats what they are trying to do.
There to judge if people broke laws or didnt thats all.
This country was founded on religious values.They were the values of the men who wrote the constitution . I know many people who dont even believe there is a god with the same veiws.
What scares me is people acting like people that have values have something wrong with em.
The values they have are obv the values of the majority of americans.

[Farquar]

Values + Dogma + Fairy Tales = Religion

I have no problem with value driven laws and policy. It's the other two things I'm worried about.

That the men who framed the constitution were mostly religious is something worth noting. That these same men explicitly reserved a provision separating church and state is ever more significant.

[Ravenstorm]

And the power to decide if a law violates the Constitution, thereby being null and void, resides in the Supreme Court. That's the part DeLay has a problem with. He wants the final word on what's Right and Truth. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Raven

[Artha]

Judicial review is more of a power begun by John Marshall than the Constitution.

[Back]

Originally posted by Farquar
Values + Dogma + Fairy Tales = Religion

I have no problem with value driven laws and policy. It's the other two things I'm worried about.

That the men who framed the constitution were mostly religious is something worth noting. That these same men explicitly reserved a provision separating church and state is ever more significant.

America was also founded so that people could have the freedom to worship how they chose. A testament that our founding fathers while having values found no worship higher than another.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
A testament that our founding fathers while having values found no worship higher than another.To play devil's advocate for a moment, couldn't they have acted in the same vein as John Kerry's "I'm against abortion, but I won't make a law against it" position? By which I mean they compromised their beliefs in the interests of the nation getting along.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
And the power to decide if a law violates the Constitution, thereby being null and void, resides in the Supreme Court. That's the part DeLay has a problem with. He wants the final word on what's Right and Truth. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Raven
Exactly but the judges now arent going by the constitution there going by what there political party line thinks.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
A testament that our founding fathers while having values found no worship higher than another.To play devil's advocate for a moment, couldn't they have acted in the same vein as John Kerry's "I'm against abortion, but I won't make a law against it" position? By which I mean they compromised their beliefs in the interests of the nation getting along.

The first fault in your argument is having to bring up Kerry. The second one is trying to undermine our political system based on your opinion on the characters of those men which is unfounded and unsubstantial.

[Artha]

The second one is trying to undermine our political system based on your opinion on the characters of those men which is unfounded and unsubstantial.
Some would say that's what you're doing.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Gridlock
Exactly but the judges now arent going by the constitution there going by what there political party line thinks.

You're confusing derivative values with shared ones. Two entities exhibiting the same values does not equate to control or dominion.

Also, if you are going to participate in political discussion, please make a reasonable attempt at proper spelling and punctuation. It will give your opinions some credibility.

[Back]

Originally posted by Artha

The second one is trying to undermine our political system based on your opinion on the characters of those men which is unfounded and unsubstantial.
Some would say that's what you're doing.

I should have been more clear in saying those men who founded our country. A clear difference from those who try to control it now.

[Warriorbird]

The thing most conservatives don't get is that judicial activism is something favored by conservatives too occassionally.

Just saying Judicial activism = liberal and strict constructionist = conservative is intensely narrowminded.

A vast portion of these "judicial activists" being complained about are Republican appointees.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

Quit making shit up warriorbird. Your argument will be better for it

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Gridlock
Exactly but the judges now arent going by the constitution there going by what there political party line thinks.

You're confusing derivative values with shared ones. Two entities exhibiting the same values does not equate to control or dominion.
-----------------------------------------------------
It does when there values are comeing before what the constitution says the law is.

-----------------------------------------------------
Also, if you are going to participate in political discussion, please make a reasonable attempt at proper spelling and punctuation. It will give your opinions some credibility.
WTF Al Gore cant spell potato he was vice president.
What are you trying to say people who cant read and write opions dont matter?
Prejustice bastard. Im reporting you to the ACLU NAACP NCAA NFL AFL AHL and the god damn ABL.
WTF does spelling have to do with someone opion.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock]

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock]

Its a way for people to insult you on the boards.
It makes them feel better about themselves when they can not really refute anything you say so instead they have to attack you. Get used to it.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Gridlock
seemingly random garbled mess of phrases


How can I even respond to you if I can barely discern what you're saying? To be honest, I really don't know if your opinion is valid or not, because I have no idea what you're getting at.

Between you and the brainwashed sheep in fatigues, I beginning to think I've landed in the Twilight Zone.

Edit: Oh yeah, get your facts straight. It was Dan Quayle who couldn't spell potato. Al Gore invented the internet.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Farquar]

Funny, I understood what he was saying. Perhaps your I'm better than you elitist mentality is clouding your ability to comprehend simple statements.


As to the brainwashed sheep comment, ask any of the long term posters here, my views haven't changed from the first day i started posting. So I must have been brainwashed before i ever thought of putting on fatigues.


[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Dave]

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Gridlock
seemingly random garbled mess of phrases


How can I even respond to you if I can barely discern what you're saying? To be honest, I really don't know if your opinion is valid or not, because I have no idea what you're getting at.

Between you and the brainwashed sheep in fatigues, I beginning to think I've landed in the Twilight Zone.

Edit: Oh yeah, get your facts straight. It was Dan Quayle who couldn't spell potato. Al Gore invented the internet.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Farquar]
He also invented how to loose and election.
Ill go get my speak and spell.shine it real good and shove it up your smart ass.
Do you understand that?

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Gridlock
He also invented how to loose and election.
Ill go get my speak and spell.shine it real good and shove it up your smart ass.
Do you understand that?

Barely. But now you're attacking me because you can't refute what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Gridlock
He also invented how to loose and election.
Ill go get my speak and spell.shine it real good and shove it up your smart ass.
Do you understand that?

Barely. But now you're attacking me because you can't refute what I'm saying.

Now now, you're a lawyer farquar, we both know what your attempting to do here, with the baiting and the like.
Does it make you feel powerful?
Does it make you feel better than other people?


Keep it up, your ego needs the self stroking.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Dave]

[SpunGirl]

Ahem. Slightly on-topic, I was informed by my supervisor today that Justice Stevens and his wife will be visiting my work for three days this week. For the low, low price of $50, I will tell him what your opinions are regarding current issues facing the Supreme Court. Paypal me!

-K

PS He seriously is visiting and I'm all excited, there's going to be a Marshal posted in the surveillance room the entire time. Fun!

You know, if you get tapes of them... :whipit:
You can make a lot of money.. Mrs. Surveillance.

[SpunGirl]

LOL. That would be so wrong.

I have seen lots of amateur semi-porn that I'm sure I could've copied and sold. Like the time this chick was jerking this dude while he played video poker.

But that is SO off-topic.

-K

[Farquar]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
LOL. That would be so wrong.

I have seen lots of amateur semi-porn that I'm sure I could've copied and sold. Like the time this chick was jerking this dude while he played video poker.

But that is SO off-topic.

-K

Justice Stevens is going to a casino? Can you tell us what kind of event it is?

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Gridlock
He also invented how to loose and election.
Ill go get my speak and spell.shine it real good and shove it up your smart ass.
Do you understand that?

Barely. But now you're attacking me because you can't refute what I'm saying.
I wasn't attacking you i was just trying to communicate with you.I think you lack basic comprehension skills.
What part was i supposed to be trying to refute? I know i don't spell very well i wasn't trying to refute that.
Maybe your just angry because you found out last election your view's are the minority in America.
Jeb 2008

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Farquar

Justice Stevens is going to a casino? Can you tell us what kind of event it is?

As far as I know, he's coming for a vacation. I'm told he likes the tables.

-K

[Gan]

If Delay's actions and motives are to circumvent the checks/balances system that is in place then I agree he is overstepping his bounds. (Note: I'm not a DeLay fan, he represents everything I hate about BIG politik.)

However, if DeLay truly means that the SC Justices aim/goal should be to uphold the Constitution, even through Judiciary Review, but not more than that (ie. dictating policy and indirectly creating legislation); then I agree with him.

[Warriorbird]

"Quit making shit up warriorbird. Your argument will be better for it "

Come back when you know what the fuck you're talking about. Then you can kiss my ass. That was even more pathetic than your usual replies.

Check the appointment totals before you talk out the side of your mouth. The main basis of this complaint is the appellate courts. They're heavily Republican appointees. The Schiavo case is an excellent example of that.

Once Bush's nominations get through (and believe me, Roberts is getting through unless he does something like eat babies in his spare time) the Supreme Court will be the same way, and to add to it, Rehnquist is going to go out before the end of Bush's presidency...which will give "conservative" judges a clear majority. It still isn't really an issue of "conservative" versus "liberal" with "judicial activist" versus "strict constructionist" however, and if the Republicans aren't careful that will bite them... or do things like make you look like an idiot, Dave.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Warriorbird]

"Now now, you're a lawyer farquar, we both know what your attempting to do here, with the baiting and the like.
Does it make you feel powerful?
Does it make you feel better than other people?


Keep it up, your ego needs the self stroking. "

Coming from the "international" national man of mystery this is hilarious.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Farquar
That the men who framed the constitution were mostly religious is something worth noting. That these same men explicitly reserved a provision separating church and state is ever more significant.


Mostly religious? More like, mostly Christian. Various types of Christianity certainly, but no Jewish or Islamic founders.


"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."


There was no provision to seperate the church and state. Rather, a provision that disallowed the Federal government the ability to ban religions. Nor would there be a compulsory state religion.

[Warriorbird]

Depends on if you consider Deism/Enlightenment philosophy "Christian".

"There was no provision to seperate the church and state. Rather, a provision that disallowed the Federal government the ability to ban religions. Nor would there be a compulsory state religion. "

Have you analyzed the logic of that statement?

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Depends on if you consider Deism/Enlightenment philosophy "Christian".


Considering I'm a deist and a Christian, yes, yes I do.



Originally posted by Warriorbird
"There was no provision to seperate the church and state. Rather, a provision that disallowed the Federal government the ability to ban religions. Nor would there be a compulsory state religion. "

Have you analyzed the logic of that statement?

Yes, can you tell me what you are wondering about?

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Drew]

[Warriorbird]

"The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority."

As to the church/state seperation, the idea was that a vast slew of different religious groups had travelled to America to practice their religion freely and not have anything imposed on anyone else. Only in the 1950's did we get the bullshit notion that this meant a theocracy. If you have any religion/state combination you've already violated the establishment clause. It wasn't an issue of compulsory.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority."


Deism is the belief in a "Clockmaker God", the belief that God created the universe, wound it up and set it in motion and since that point has intervened not at all or infrequently (the view I ascribe to) in it's affairs.

The three founding fathers most frequently cited as deist are Franklin, Paine and Jefferson, allow me to show you one of my favorite quotes:


"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?" -Benjamin Franklin

[Warriorbird]

How does that suggest a Christian focus? It doesn't. I also highly doubt that Franklin's international playboy status wouldn't make him fit in terribly well with most Christians.

All three of the fellows you list were flatly against COE dominance. It was an "established" religion... but you didn't HAVE to be in COE. Sure, certain other religions were heavily restricted (which follows your argument)... but you heavily underestimate the scope of their argument (which was against theocracy)... as well as suggesting that you're a "Christian" Deist, which pretty resoundingly violates any classical notions of Deism.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
How does that suggest a Christian focus? It doesn't.

It doesn't? Are we reading the same thing?



Originally posted by Warriorbird
as well as suggesting that you're a "Christian" Deist, which pretty resoundingly violates any classical notions of Deism.



I don't see how. There have always been varying levels of deism, from the extreme (Voltaire) to the temperate (Franklin). I personally consider myself very much a Christian, but I don't think that if I pray for God to change the stoplight because I'm late to work, he will. Or even to stop my car from crashing. I think God intervenes very infrequently in our world (which the Bible tends to support).

[Warriorbird]

....."without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority."

"It doesn't? Are we reading the same thing? "

We pretty clearly are. You're suggesting that violating the establishment cause with Christianity is fine and the Founding Fathers would support it. I'm suggesting that they didn't have that in mind at all and the standpoint you're arguing from was founded in the views of modern fundmentalist Christians.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

What is suspect is DeLay’s association with this extremist religious group.


James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, cautioned that America’s most powerful judges are “unelected, unaccountable and arrogant.”

The president of The Catholic League, Bill Donohue, suggested a constitutional amendment to say that “unless a judicial vote is unanimous, you cannot overturn a law created by Congress.”

The court is trying to “take the hearts and souls of our culture,” he said.



At the rally Sunday, Mike Miller, 54, of Gallatin echoed many of the speakers comments on judicial power, saying he believes Supreme Court justices try to create laws with their rulings instead of interpreting the Constitution.

“Activist justices — we’re trying to find out what we can do to stop that activity,” he said. “Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments.”

Frist wasn’t invited to speak because of his stance on stem-cell research.

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"The word "Deism" is derived from the Latin word for God: "Deus." Deism involves the belief in the existence of God, on purely rational grounds, without any reliance on revealed religion or religious authority."


Deism is the belief in a "Clockmaker God", the belief that God created the universe, wound it up and set it in motion and since that point has intervened not at all or infrequently (the view I ascribe to) in it's affairs.

The three founding fathers most frequently cited as deist are Franklin, Paine and Jefferson, allow me to show you one of my favorite quotes:


"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – God governs in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?" -Benjamin Franklin
Thanks drew saved me the effort to show that warriorbird is talking out of his ass, yet again.

[DeV]

Took me a while but I found a couple of quotes I thought were fitting.

By the way, I completely agree with Farquar and his views about the founding fathers and their intentions in shaping the constitution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one." - Thomas Jefferson

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"...our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

"I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protections of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."--Thomas Jefferson, from his autobiography, 1821

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind." -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in 1822

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."--Thomas Paine, from The Age of Reason

Oh, and just for fun...

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion” – John Adams – The Treaty of Tripoli

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the Common Law”- Thomas Jefferson - his discourse on the evolution of the Constitution and the effect of British Common Law.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
The first fault in your argument is having to bring up Kerry.I couldn't think of anyone else who's said "I believe this, but I support legislation that would indicate the exact opposite belief" besides him and the Founding Fathers. If you can find another example, go right ahead.
The second one is trying to undermine our political system based on your opinion on the characters of those men which is unfounded and unsubstantial. :?: I wasn't undermining anything. I was taking issue with your statement that a politician necessarily believes in every political position he (I don't know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers were all male) supports.
Originally posted by Warriorbird
the idea was that a vast slew of different religious groups had travelled to America to practice their religion freelySure.
and not have anything imposed on anyone else.Not so much. From what I learned, neither the Pilgrims nor the Puritans had a problem with religious intolerance, they just had a problem with being on the losing end of it. Remember Salem? That's not to say there weren't ANY religions that showed up in America that were tolerant, just that to say tolerance was everywhere is an overstatement.
Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson
I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.Makes me wonder what he'd say about the promotion of anti-theism.
Originally posted by Thomas Paine
[hu]mankind:giggle:

Good quotes, DeV. :)

[Warriorbird]

"Thanks drew saved me the effort to show that warriorbird is talking out of his ass, yet again. "

Not that you have the mental capacity to even start to try, Dave. Do you even know what Deism is? I think Drew's read some things or heard some things from a preacher from modern times. It is a nice feeling to think you believe something similar to the Founding Fathers... even if it isn't true. Having spent at least a year of research on the Founding Fathers and their beliefs... you can go back to pretending to be Austin Powers. Or trolling.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Warriorbird]

"Not so much. From what I learned, neither the Pilgrims nor the Puritans had a problem with religious intolerance, they just had a problem with being on the losing end of it. Remember Salem? That's not to say there weren't ANY religions that showed up in America that were tolerant, just that to say tolerance was everywhere is an overstatement."

No, Latrin. That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause. I guess America deserves a theocracy.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Makes me wonder what he'd say about the promotion of anti-theism. Considering he was a deist, no doubt he'd give it :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[hu]mankind :giggle:
Context determines. :yes:

[Drew]

Either way, you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine out the wazoo (ahh, wazoo) but they still make up a very tiny portion of the founding fathers, most of whom were Anglican or Episcopalian and very much Christians. So if the argument was "This wasn't the intent of the founding fathers because they were deists", it falls short.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Drew
"This wasn't the intent of the founding fathers because they were deists", it falls short. Eh, if that's what you got from my quotes then you are quite wrong with your intent. Also, I did not read any of your posts as I stopped short at Farquar's, but I'll go back and read what you have to say. Not that it would have any bearing on my posts or the quotes therein though.

[Gridlock]

I love how some people try and twist the words of our founding fathers to sound like they thought as they do.When in fact they'd probably line them up for a firing squad.
Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.
No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody.
Andrew Jackson

[DeV]

Originally posted by Gridlock
I love how some people try and twist the words of our founding fathers to sound like they thought as they do. It happens both ways. Even worse when it comes to the bible. Direct quotes are not easily twisted unless the context is truly distorted or missinterpreted by the receiver.

p.s. Andrew Jackson got it right with that one.

[Warriorbird]

Andrew Jackson wasn't one of the Founding Fathers. He was a great man though. I highly doubt that that bunch of Enlightenment thinkers would have anyone shot unless they sympathized with the British.

[Warriorbird]

"Either way, you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine out the wazoo (ahh, wazoo) but they still make up a very tiny portion of the founding fathers, most of whom were Anglican or Episcopalian and very much Christians. "

And curiously enough didn't establish a state religion or bring religion into government. They weren't after a theocracy. And if they were Anglicans, well, they probably weren't for independence anyway for the most part.

"So if the argument was "This wasn't the intent of the founding fathers because they were deists", it falls short. "

That wasn't the argument. Then again, I don't think you're really qualified to say anything about historical Deists. The argument was over people's distortions of the establishment clause, which, if anything, represent religiously oriented judicial activism.

See, Dave?

:snickers:

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

And curiously enough didn't establish a state religion or bring religion into government.

They didn't establish a state religion. They did bring religion into government. Where do you think prayer before congress went into session came from? Chaplains in congress. The fact is that the founding fathers brought religion into all facets of government and believing anything other than that is historical revisionism at it's finest. You can call it wrong if you want, but don't say it didn't exist.

[Warriorbird]

Of course... they logically demanded that religion be taught in schools.

They also included God in the Pledge of Allegiance too, right?

[Warriorbird]

"The fact is that the founding fathers brought religion into all facets of government and believing anything other than that is historical revisionism at it's finest."

Man. Prayers before sessions of Congress. That was some pervasive stuff.

[Gridlock]

Damn if he wasnt he should be he pretty much won the war of 1812 by himself.
Bah ok

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
Samuel Adams
All civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.
Roger Sherman
An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry. :lol:
Thomas Jefferson

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course... they logically demanded that religion be taught in schools.

They also included God in the Pledge of Allegiance too, right?


In the FEDERAL public school system in the 1700s? What are you talking about?


And yes I know when "Under God" was added, just because they didn't name drop God in every single thing they did doesn't make it any less true.

[Warriorbird]

"Damn if he wasnt he should be he pretty much won the war of 1812 by himself.
Bah ok "

I totally agree. Jackson was a hell of a guy. Eerily enough, most folks consider me a liberal too.

"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams "

Once again, I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with religion. I'm very much against gun control.

"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
Samuel Adams"

That's pretty simple. I don't think morals necessarily equate to religion. Could definitely be seen as a condemnation of politicians like Clinton or Gingrich, if you wanted to use it for that, but I don't think it's suggesting we need a theocracy.

"All civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.
Roger Sherman "

Which is completely reasonable. They weren't going to exclude Puritans or Catholics or anybody. Damn sporting of em..considering where they came from.

" An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson"

I definitely agree. Some of the more conservative types around here tend to complain when they get quarrelled with however. Dave especially likes to do "me too" flames.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course... they logically demanded that religion be taught in schools.

They also included God in the Pledge of Allegiance too, right?



In the FEDERAL public school system in the 1700s? What are you talking about?


And yes I know when "Under God" was added, just because they didn't name drop God in every single thing they did doesn't make it any less true.
My Dollar says"In God we trust"
Thats a pretty big name drop.

[Warriorbird]

"In the FEDERAL public school system in the 1700s? What are you talking about? "

Hmmm.....

And yeah, "Under God" was added in the 1950's.

You're basically trying to ascribe your values to them, just like anyone else. I don't think most of them would have supported a Federal school system, much less any established prayer in it. I also think most of them would've advocated against religion influencing statecraft. They were influenced by the Enlightenment. They practiced realpolitik. Without it, they would've never succeeding in making a country that religion now gets to condemn into a dark age where we deny progress and make bad decisions based on singular interpretations of faith.

Forget that Franklin was an inventor?

:chuckles:

"Physics is against God's plan!"

Not in any Deist tracts I've ever read.

[Gridlock]

Warriorbird you hate god don't you?

[Warriorbird]

"'My Dollar says"In God we trust"
Thats a pretty big name drop."

Your dollar also has occult symbology.

:P

[Warriorbird]

I actually rather like God. I don't like people attempting to force their ways on other people in improper settings however. It's like pamphleteers. If you think of Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists showing up and bothering you every time people try to inject religion into government then you might get my feelings.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I actually rather like God. I don't like people attempting to force their ways on other people in improper settings however. It's like pamphleteers. If you think of Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists showing up and bothering you every time people try to inject religion into government then you might get my feelings.

Stop lying. You hate God, you hate America. You're a lying, commie atheist pinko revolutionary and exactly the danger McCarthy was talking about.

Raven

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I actually rather like God. I don't like people attempting to force their ways on other people in improper settings however. It's like pamphleteers. If you think of Hare Krishnas or Seventh Day Adventists showing up and bothering you every time people try to inject religion into government then you might get my feelings.
Lmao
You wanna buy a flower then hear my testament?
How about a subscription to Watchtower sir?

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"'My Dollar says"In God we trust"
Thats a pretty big name drop."

Your dollar also has occult symbology.

:P
I've heard that before what is it?

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock]

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Damn if he wasnt he should be he pretty much won the war of 1812 by himself.
Bah ok "

I totally agree. Jackson was a hell of a guy. Eerily enough, most folks consider me a liberal too.


"The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams "

Once again, I agree. But that doesn't have anything to do with religion. I'm very much against gun control.

"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
Samuel Adams"

That's pretty simple. I don't think morals necessarily equate to religion. Could definitely be seen as a condemnation of politicians like Clinton or Gingrich, if you wanted to use it for that, but I don't think it's suggesting we need a theocracy.

"All civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.
Roger Sherman "

Which is completely reasonable. They weren't going to exclude Puritans or Catholics or anybody. Damn sporting of em..considering where they came from.

" An association of men who will not quarrel with one another is a thing which has never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry.
Thomas Jefferson"

I definitely agree. Some of the more conservative types around here tend to complain when they get quarrelled with however. Dave especially likes to do "<a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=31&k=me%20too" onmouseover="window.status='<a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=31&k=me%20too" onmouseover="window.status='me too'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">me too</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">me too</a>" flames.
Oh heh i was kinda directing that towards Dev's quotem up post.
I don't think we need a theocracy but I'm kinda tired of people acting like people are morons or imbeciles for believing in god or condemning the president because he does.
I was just making the point that the values entombed in the constitution are one in the same as the ones in the bible for the most part.
If i said what i thought about churches and religion today id prolly be considered a liberal but then id have to shoot someone to prove i'm not.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Either way, you can quote Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine out the wazoo (ahh, wazoo) but they still make up a very tiny portion of the founding fathers, most of whom were Anglican or Episcopalian and very much Christians. "

And curiously enough didn't establish a state religion or bring religion into government. They weren't after a theocracy. And if they were Anglicans, well, they probably weren't for independence anyway for the most part.

"So if the argument was "This wasn't the intent of the founding fathers because they were deists", it falls short. "

That wasn't the argument. Then again, I don't think you're really qualified to say anything about historical Deists. The argument was over people's distortions of the establishment clause, which, if anything, represent religiously oriented judicial activism.

See, Dave?

:snickers:

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Warriorbird]


No he explained what a diest was, which you didnt know.
See warriorbird.

[Warriorbird]

Err, Dave... anyone with half a brain could do a little research into it. Even you. Look, a compliment!

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Drew
Mostly religious? More like, mostly Christian. Various types of Christianity certainly, but no Jewish or Islamic founders.


"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."


There was no provision to seperate the church and state. Rather, a provision that disallowed the Federal government the ability to ban religions. Nor would there be a compulsory state religion.

Explicitly, perhaps not. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, however, the basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is to create a "wall of separation between church and state."

The Supreme Court today uses a three part test from Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine whether a state action violates the Establishment Clause:

1) The action must have a secular legislative purpose

2) Its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and

3) It must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Sounds like a good amount of separation to me.

[Back]

I think its very clear no matter how you look at it that our government was set up specifically to not have religious influence interfere. Its the main reason people left England at the time, to get away from what they thought was the wrong way to run things and were determined that it would not happen here.

Church and state are VERY separate these days. This nation is not run by priests. There are very few nations left that do. Thats the way our country was set up and thats the way we need to keep it, at least in my opinion. So when I see people like DeLay and others attending church sponsored functions for political reasons a little bell goes off.

I know, christian fundamentalists DO have a great amount of input into our politics through lobbying people who have forgotten there is no room for theological mythology or any kind of mythology when humankind sets itself to govern humankind. But we have a process that was set up to keep church and state separate and its been doing a good job regardless.

If you read through the article there are people of faith who argue against the marriage of church and state saying that those who think religion should rule are no closer to God than anyone else so why should they have more say than anyone else.

Religious extremism right now, to me, is the last thing you want to espouse in this or any other country. Worship how you want, live how your faith dictates, more power to you... until that lifestyle affects mine. I live my life how I live it and I don’t go around telling or commanding people to live like I do, even though I do walk what many would consider a righteous path.

The Ten Commandments, as an example, are righteous ways to live. Without a doubt they are the first laws, no matter the source, than man has adopted and most likely a basis in the western world for the laws we choose to govern each other with. Anyone who follows them to their law I believe to be a righteous person. But I do not believe that not living in total strict adherence with every one of them is going to mean an eternity of hell. Mainly because I don’t believe in hell. Carlin has a great bit on the Ten Commandments.

Furthermore, you can’t come to me saying the law of the land is the Ten Commandments then turn around and tell me war is ok. Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print.

So the idea of the church influencing the state for me is a big no. It cannot mix. You can’t say that one religion should have more of a say than another. But even after that, its the corporations that freak me out more. Walk through NY and tell me which buildings are the tallest and see more people on a daily basis.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"In the FEDERAL public school system in the 1700s? What are you talking about? "

Hmmm.....

And yeah, "Under God" was added in the 1950's.

You're basically trying to ascribe your values to them, just like anyone else. I don't think most of them would have supported a Federal school system, much less any established prayer in it.


You missed my whole point and I find it quite amusing. You asked "Did they put prayer in schools?" I said "in the FEDERAL school system" because there was no such beast so they would never have had the oppurtunity to. My point was that your example was flawed, hence the BIG CAPS to point out there was no Federal school system (and technically still isn't, but that's a story for another day). You didn't pick up on that though.

[Gridlock]

"Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print."

Here is where church goers are going to not like me i think the bible today's is read and taught wrong.

This has been change from early versions of the bible that said thou shalt not murder. That's totally different then thall shall not kill. we would sin every time we stepped on a bug ate a steak or mowed the grass cause in doing all these things we are killing something.
There are also many many places in the Bible that can be found that god ask for war and asked for people to be killed.

When you kill to protect someone or something from harm its not murder.

IMO the bible today is very um made to fit what certain people throughout history wanted it to say to fit how they wanted to run there countries and control the people in them.
Now ill hide before im burned at the stake.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Gridlock]
"Religious extremism right now, to me, is the last thing you want to espouse in this or any other country."
See this is what i mean there are no Religious extremists now if you wanna see those look at the crusades, or witch trials. Just because they wont allow you gay marriage don't make em extremists.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Gridlock]

[Warriorbird]

"You missed my whole point and I find it quite amusing. You asked "Did they put prayer in schools?" I said "in the FEDERAL school system" because there was no such beast so they would never have had the oppurtunity to. My point was that your example was flawed, hence the BIG CAPS to point out there was no Federal school system (and technically still isn't, but that's a story for another day). You didn't pick up on that though. "

That was completely obvious. I addressed it, but I doubt you read it. It didn't actually disprove anything.

I think the establishment test cited by Farquar would be something good for you to think on.

[Warriorbird]

Well, there are SOME extremists in America, Gridlock (those who murder over their faith), but I'd agree with you to a large extent.

The Bible is something that was and is crafted by people. I don't see it as having a place in government, other than a few basic moral tenets. People can say that it lead to our laws, but really, it only lead to a very small number of them in that sense.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Originally posted by Gridlock
"Religious extremism right now, to me, is the last thing you want to espouse in this or any other country."
See this is what i mean there are no Religious extremists now if you wanna see those look at the crusades, or witch trials. Just because they wont allow you gay marriage don't make em extremists.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Gridlock]

I am going to suggest that anyone who tells anyone else how to live based on their faith is a religious extremist.

Fear of being burned, in your own words, at the stake says quite a bit. Who burns people at stakes? Those who supposedly live by their Lord’s laws. Those that shalt not kill.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think the establishment test cited by Farquar would be something good for you to think on.


Which was set up in 1971. We were talking about the found father's views on Christianity in government.

[Gridlock]

Being burned at the stake was more of a sarcastic joke then me really fearing being burned at the stake.
There are laws about how we must live what kinda extremist does that make the government? Aren't they telling us how to live? No Religious leader can "tell" you how to live they can only suggest. But they can vote for people who think like they do and they may pass laws. Thats one bad part of majority rules.
If they became the minority it cut the other way.There are laws to protect the minority i don't really think no religious leader can make you live how they think you should.

[Back]

Originally posted by Gridlock
Being burned at the stake was more of a sarcastic joke then me really fearing being burned at the stake.
There are laws about how we must live what kinda extremist does that make the government? Aren't they telling us how to live? No Religious leader can "tell" you how to live they can only suggest. But they can vote for people who think like they do and they may pass laws. Thats one bad part of majority rules.
If they became the minority it cut the other way.There are laws to protect the minority i don't really think no religious leader can make you live how they think you should.

Despite your double negative, I understand that you mean like the founders of this country ensured. Thats the whole point of this thread. Political leaders getting involved in extremist religious people’s sponsored events a little warning sign.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think the establishment test cited by Farquar would be something good for you to think on.


Which was set up in 1971. We were talking about the found father's views on Christianity in government.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. The court's purpose is to interpret the Constitution in a manner most consistent with the framers' intent. Thus, it doesn't really matter when the test was set up, just that it facilitates Constitutional interpretation and application. Con Law 101.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Farquar

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I think the establishment test cited by Farquar would be something good for you to think on.


Which was set up in 1971. We were talking about the found father's views on Christianity in government.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. The court's purpose is to interpret the Constitution in a manner most consistent with the framers' intent. Thus, it doesn't really matter when the test was set up, just that it facilitates Constitutional interpretation and application. Con Law 101.


And the application has been consistent (even by the Supreme Court) since that point, right?

We'll see if it even exists five years from now. The Supreme Court changes it's opinions about every 40 years, and we're about due for a change I think (not a personal opinion, just that these things are cyclical).

[Drew]

Originally posted by Backlash
Furthermore, you can’t come to me saying the law of the land is the Ten Commandments then turn around and tell me war is ok. Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print.



I wouldn't tell you that if the ten commandments said thou shalt not kill. It says you shall not murder. There are several instances in the Bible in which God specifically commands people to kill.



http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:13&version=31

[Warriorbird]

Gosh. I hope everyone will be happy with the theocracy.

[Back]

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Backlash
Furthermore, you can’t come to me saying the law of the land is the Ten Commandments then turn around and tell me war is ok. Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print.


I wouldn't tell you that if the ten commandments said thou shalt not kill. It says you shall not murder. There are several instances in the Bible in which God specifically commands people to kill.



http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:13&version=31

Like that changes anything? Sounds to me like people interpreting things how they want to justify their hypocrisy.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Gridlock
Oh heh i was kinda directing that towards Dev's quotem up post.
I don't think we need a theocracy but I'm kinda tired of people acting like people are morons or imbeciles for believing in god or condemning the president because he does.
I was just making the point that the values entombed in the constitution are one in the same as the ones in the bible for the most part.
If i said what i thought about churches and religion today id prolly be considered a liberal but then id have to shoot someone to prove i'm not.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock] Great quotes Gridlock. I find it hilarious that you also went on a quoting spree because you wrongly felt that I think people are morons or imbeciles for believing in the same God as I. Also, where and at what point have I condemned the president for believing in God at any time in this discussion? Ridiculous.

Values embody mostly all aspects of the institution known as our American government. That is a given, Gridlock. No one should believe otherwise and that includes myself. Perhaps if you truly comprehended the meaning of my quotes you would not have made such a baseless and completely inaccurate assumption about my views on God, the president, or falsely thinking that I feel people who believe in God are imbeciles or morons. That’s just crazy talk on your end.

Now, the point of my quotes was to entertain the notion that our founding fathers did not intend to establish this country based on “biblical principles” alone. Fundamentalist Christians’ work quite hard in trying to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country based on religious Christianity, but history does not completely support that point of view. Obviously, the majority believed strongly and passionately in God and the morality of his values, as evidenced throughout the years, but many were not part of any particular sect or Church. I feel they supported the dominant religion and used God because He is a powerful tool that was used to address a nation that at the time was majority Christian. The removal of religion completely is not what they intended, obviously.

I think the founding fathers were in many ways more open-minded than some Americans are today, or maybe it’s just a matter of simple foresight. Perhaps their main intent was to prevent a government ruled theocracy. In any case, your assumptions were nothing more than that. I hope I cleared up a few things for you, and if not, you can always ask for a broader explanation.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause.Haven't we been over this before? If you're going to respond to what I say, it's expected that you'll actually read what I say. I was arguing the history and context of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself. Your inference was wholly without grounds and (as usual) entirely incorrect. At least you waited for me to say something before inventing my position this time, though, WTG.

As for Andrew Jackson, he's certainly one of the most influential people in American History, but you can't be a Founding Father if you were 9 in 1776.
Originally posted by Backlash
Furthermore, you can’t come to me saying the law of the land is the Ten Commandments then turn around and tell me war is ok. Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print.It's actually the 5th (or 6th if you're a ca-razy Jew or Protestant), and it does actually say murder in some editions. Not that that detracts from your point, just clarification. :)

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Drew

Originally posted by Backlash
Furthermore, you can’t come to me saying the law of the land is the Ten Commandments then turn around and tell me war is ok. Though shalt not kill. Number one, right there, and there is no fine print.


I wouldn't tell you that if the ten commandments said thou shalt not kill. It says you shall not murder. There are several instances in the Bible in which God specifically commands people to kill.



http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020:13&version=31

Like that changes anything? Sounds to me like people interpreting things how they want to justify their hypocrisy.
Thats exactly what your doing. Interpreting things how you want to make them sound like they support your argument. The way you interpret it is ludicrous and unrealistic no one could go there in tire life and kill nothing. So just stop with that wore out shit.

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Gridlock
Oh heh i was kinda directing that towards Dev's quotem up post.
I don't think we need a theocracy but I'm kinda tired of people acting like people are morons or imbeciles for believing in god or condemning the president because he does.
I was just making the point that the values entombed in the constitution are one in the same as the ones in the bible for the most part.
If i said what i thought about churches and religion today id prolly be considered a liberal but then id have to shoot someone to prove i'm not.

[Edited on 8-16-2005 by Gridlock] Great quotes Gridlock. I find it hilarious that you also went on a quoting spree because you wrongly felt that I think people are morons or imbeciles for believing in the same God as I. Also, where and at what point have I condemned the president for believing in God at any time in this discussion? Ridiculous.

Values embody mostly all aspects of the institution known as our American government. That is a given, Gridlock. No one should believe otherwise and that includes myself. Perhaps if you truly comprehended the meaning of my quotes you would not have made such a baseless and completely inaccurate assumption about my views on God, the president, or falsely thinking that I feel people who believe in God are imbeciles or morons. That’s just crazy talk on your end.

Now, the point of my quotes was to entertain the notion that our founding fathers did not intend to establish this country based on “biblical principles” alone. Fundamentalist Christians’ work quite hard in trying to convince the American public that the founding fathers intended to establish this country based on religious Christianity, but history does not completely support that point of view. Obviously, the majority believed strongly and passionately in God and the morality of his values, as evidenced throughout the years, but many were not part of any particular sect or Church. I feel they supported the dominant religion and used God because He is a powerful tool that was used to address a nation that at the time was majority Christian. The removal of religion completely is not what they intended, obviously.

I think the founding fathers were in many ways more open-minded than some Americans are today, or maybe it’s just a matter of simple foresight. Perhaps their main intent was to prevent a government ruled theocracy. In any case, your assumptions were nothing more than that. I hope I cleared up a few things for you, and if not, you can always ask for a broader explanation.
bah i give up. Dev that was a response to a post the part about god wasnt directed toward you.
----------------------------------------------------
That's pretty simple. I don't think morals necessarily equate to religion. Could definitely be seen as a condemnation of politicians like Clinton or Gingrich, if you wanted to use it for that, but I don't think it's suggesting we need a theocracy.
----------------------------------------------------
This is what i was responding to sorry i wasnt more clear.I got beer bubbles in my head.





[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Gridlock]

[Warriorbird]

"Your inference was wholly without grounds"

-Latrin

Except for, you know, primary source quotes from the folks who wrote it. But what do they know?

"not the Constitution itself."

-Latrin.

When you become Drew, let me know.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gridlock]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Your inference was wholly without grounds"

Except for, you know, primary source quotes from the folks who wrote it. But what do they know?

"not the Constitution itself."

When you become Drew, let me know.

[Edited on 8-17-2005 by Warriorbird]
:wtf:
What are you talking about man?

[Warriorbird]

Latrin's post. I added his name as a reference.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Except for, you know, primary source quotes from the folks who wrote it. But what do they know??!?!?!? I'm talking about what you said about me. You know, the part of your post that I quoted?
That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause.There it is again. One more time:
That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause.And for good measure:
That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause.
When you become Drew, let me know.You got it, chief.

[ElanthianSiren]

I think the founding fathers were all deeply religious men; I think also, however that they were not missionaries. They recognized the hardship inherent in the demand that others align themselves stringently to your faith. The compromise seemed IMO to use common morality, which is much different than saying "Under God/Allah/Buddah/Ceasa/insert religious deity here".

IMO, they sought very much to circumvent many of the pitfalls that befell other political systems: giving people too much power (electoral college), the blending of faith and government, and military absolutism (balance of powers).

Finally, Bush did not win the first popular vote. Secondly, he won 51% of the second vote (and I rounded 50.7% is more accurate). Republicans like to quote how many votes he received while discounting the raw percentage relative to the number of Americans who voted in 2004. Simply put, there was a huge turnout. He had an incumbent's advantage going in and ended up winning. If he had lost, it would have been the first time in history that a war time president lost an election.

I agree with whomever posted the quote that religion is often used to divide people, seems to apply in this discussion, as well. Simply put, I don't believe that the majority of Americans desire a Christian theocracy.

-M


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004

(in case anyone disputes my numbers)

[Warriorbird]

So you're not trying to rationalize away the establishment clause by attempting to "cite historical sources" (IE, pull up quotes and pretend to be a historian), Latrin? Could've fooled me.

[Latrinsorm]

What in GOD'S NAME are you talking about??? The only people who have brought up quotes are DeV and Gridlock (and to a lesser extent, Farquar and Backlash). I responded to two of DeV's quotes in a vein that had nothing to do with the validity of the Constitution (degendering of language and the hypocrisy of certain atheists). I don't know what thread you're reading.

[Warriorbird]

"I was arguing the history and context of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself. "
-Latrin

[Latrinsorm]

And that somehow equates to me "pulling up quotes"?

[Warriorbird]

When any so-called "historical proof" of your point is just that, yes.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah, you're right, Salem never happened. No witch trial or religious persecution occurred before 1787 in America. :shrug:

You should probably look up rationalize, btw.

[Warriorbird]

What exactly did Salem have to do with constitutional law or rational thinking?

Hmm.

That's like saying lynchings suggest that there is racism still inherent in the Consitution.

And no... you're seeking support for ideas that simply aren't there and weren't held and now you're citing something from 1692. It's sort've similar to the feminist historians that really badly want women to have held a larger role in certain portions of history so they make things up... which invalidates their ideals of patriarchal oppression.



[Edited on 8-18-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
What exactly did Salem have to do with constitutional law or rational thinking?How quickly they forget. :no:
the idea was that a vast slew of different religious groups had travelled to America to practice their religion freely and not have anything imposed on anyone else.From http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=16978&page=2#pid420963 I don't know what the Framers' motivations were, and it's pretty clear what the Constitution says. I know for a fact that the HISTORY you describe is false. HENCE, I argue the HISTORY, not the CONSTITUTION.
you're seeking support for ideas that simply aren't there and weren't held Of course the idea that your picture of history is flawed wasn't around in the 1780's. How could it be? :?:

[Warriorbird]

"How quickly they forget."

The point was it had nothing to do with it.

"I don't know what the Framers' motivations were, and it's pretty clear what the Constitution says. I know for a fact that the HISTORY you describe is false. HENCE, I argue the HISTORY, not the CONSTITUTION."

So, it's pretty clear. How many colonial history courses have you had? How much primary and secondary source research have you done? I was pretty close to writing my senior thesis on the Founders religious and ceremonial beliefs.

" I know for a fact that the HISTORY you describe is false. "
-Latrin

This is a hilarious statement. You'd have to have some concept of the philosophy of history to understand why it is. You're so sure that it's hilarious. It's like applying your faith to history, which quite frankly completely fails.

"I don't know what the Framers' motivations were"

Eerily enough, many of them wrote their motivations down. Back then people spent nearly as many hours writing letters as you do trying to convince me that America should be a theocracy.

"HENCE, I argue the HISTORY, not the CONSTITUTION."

Except you haven't made a single valid historical argument. You come across as wishing more than debating. It's obvious that religion has played a vast role in American and colonial history. That doesn't make it obvious that the Founding Fathers did not want to include the seperation of church and state as sacrosanct in the Constiution. A fair portion of the drive to seperate from Britain was religiously influenced. I'm sure the Anglican heirarchy really loved the "colonials" that had rebelled.

"you're seeking support for ideas that simply aren't there and weren't held"

Your weird little semantic attempt to dismiss this was rather off the deep end. You're seeking support for the idea that the Founders didn't want seperation of church and state. Mysteriously, they included an important clause in the constitution about precisely that and wrote quite a bit about how the seperation of church and state was important for our growing new nation.

But it's useless debating anything with you. You debate from faith rather than rationality, and because you have strong convictions in your faith it will never be shaken.

We'll just have to get to work on furthering our theocratic government. I'm sure Bill Frist has some open internship positions.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
The point was it had nothing to do with it.I probably should have said I wasn't talking about the Constitution itself then. Oh wait! :!:
Except you haven't made a single valid historical argument.Your premise: ~X
My premise, with historical illustration: X
My argument: QED ~~X

My argument is unquestionably valid. The only matter of concern is whether my premises are true, which would make my argument sound. Given that you simply stated something as fact (almost as if you were arguing from faith) whereas I provided a shred of evidence (almost as if I was debating), I would say my premise is in a much stronger position than yours.
You're seeking support for the idea that the Founders didn't want seperation of church and state.I am??? Wow, no wonder you have such contempt for me, when I don't even know what I'm seeking for!!
You debate from faith rather than rationalityOf course I do. That's why I'm the one who irrationally tells the other person what they're thinking. Doh! That's you!

If you have some sort of proof that the witch trials never occurred, let me know. I know of at least 6 authors who are going to feel really dumb for publishing books that state the exact opposite.
But it's useless debating anything with you.Latrinsorm's Easy Guide to Useful Debate!
Step 1! Read/listen to your opponent's position.
Step 2! Point out the flaws in your opponent's position.
Step 3! Defend your own position.

You do step 2 and step 3 pretty well. It's step 1 that's tripping you up.

[Warriorbird]

"If you have some sort of proof that the witch trials never occurred, let me know."

When you point out when I ever said that, maybe we can continue.

[Latrinsorm]

From http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=16978&page=2#pid421153 (the part in quotes is you quoting me, then your words at the end)
"Not so much. From what I learned, neither the Pilgrims nor the Puritans had a problem with religious intolerance, they just had a problem with being on the losing end of it. Remember Salem? That's not to say there weren't ANY religions that showed up in America that were tolerant, just that to say tolerance was everywhere is an overstatement."

No, Latrin. That's just to say that you like to try to rationalize away the establishment cause.

[Warriorbird]

Eh. I think we're both confused at this point.