NationStates Jolt Archive

Hahahaha... TCT beating a dead horse. Didn’t want to recite ALL of the sentence from that treaty did ya?. :rolleyes:

Citing the full sentence doesn't change the meaning. To the contrary:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries


That's soooo funny you used that case.! :D We should revive that anti-polygamy case again today, with all these challenges against the right to maintain traditional marriage laws going on all over the place, THAT SCOTUS ruling would go a long way toward saying the US Government DOES have the right to dictate what is and what is not a legal marriage in law despite what any individual or group of individuals have with religious or lack of religious standing and opinion on the matter!

Thanks for the link! :p

Now you are mixing issues. But polygamy is still illegal in the United States.

That case doesn't say the US can discriminate on the basis of gender -- which is the issue in same-sex marriages.

And if you are going to embrace that case, your whole anti-separation of Church and State position goes out the window.

Nice try at a distraction. You didn't address the substance of anything I said.

Citing the full sentence doesn't change the meaning. To the contrary:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries




Now you are mixing issues. But polygamy is still illegal in the United States.

That case doesn't say the US can discriminate on the basis of gender -- which is the issue in same-sex marriages.

And if you are going to embrace that case, your whole anti-separation of Church and State position goes out the window.

Nice try at a distraction. You didn't address the substance of anything I said.

Yes, not only is it an attempt to lure the conversation away from the point you were making, but it also ignores that there are no protections on number but there are protections on sex and race, thus making polygamy issues substantially different than same-sex issues. There is a significant difference between saying this CONTRACT can only be entered into by two people and this contract can only be entered into by white people, people of the same race or a man and a woman. Not only is the difference significant logically, but it's significant legally.

Citing the full sentence doesn't change the meaning. To the contrary:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries


Yes it does change it. It changes it entirely. Now it says that the US is not a part of the european conglomerate that Christian europe was, the "Us vs. Them" mentality of responding to and declaring wars etc., with the Muslim states, based on the opinions of the Pope or other church authorities. That unlike europoeans with royal families etc., the US was NOT obliged to declare war against them simply because they are Muslims (ALSO: the pirates had a history of breaking treaties with non-Muslims because they didn't feel obliged to respect them and the US ambassador was trying to find a way to overcome that feeling).


Now you are mixing issues. But polygamy is still illegal in the United States.

That case doesn't say the US can discriminate on the basis of gender -- which is the issue in same-sex marriages.

And if you are going to embrace that case, your whole anti-separation of Church and State position goes out the window.

Nice try at a distraction. You didn't address the substance of anything I said.

That case doesn't say anything about the how far the first amendment goes in allowing the schools and for acknowleding or not acknowledging God in government institutions either, but you used it for that, simply for a quote.

But if you want to quote cases out of context, then we can all do that can't we ... :rolleyes:

Yes it does change it. It changes it entirely. Now it says that the US is not a part of the european conglomerate that Christian europe was, the "Us vs. Them" mentality of responding to and declaring wars etc., with the Muslim states, based on the opinions of the Pope or other church authorities. That unlike europoeans with royal families etc., the US was NOT obliged to declare war against them simply because they are Muslims (ALSO: the pirates had a history of breaking treaties with non-Muslims because they didn't feel obliged to respect them and the US ambassador was trying to find a way to overcome that feeling).

You miss that despite the overall point, they clearly state that the US is in no way founded on Christianity. Just because that point is included in a bigger point doesn't erase it. You pretend like because there was a bigger purpose that the statement they made about the US not being founded on Christianity doesn't exist. It does it exist. It was made and signed into law. The intent of the statement was clear. The US was NOT founded on Christianity.

snip

Pure and simple Greenland, you've been proven wrong here and Supreme Court precedent agrees. Pack it in, buddy. Preserve your dignity for another fight, perhaps.

snip
I'd like you to explain yourself. Why would a country based on a religion be a good idea? What are the advantages of such a country? In what ways do you think such a country could be undermined through use of religion? If, as you claim over and over, there is no seperation of church and state, why do you think so many people see an advantage to such a seperation?
Playing linkies back and forth is leading no where, since you seem to be blind to what every one else notices in the constitution. So, how about you use your own opinions and answer these questions?

You miss that despite the overall point, they clearly state that the US is in no way founded on Christianity. Just because that point is included in a bigger point doesn't erase it. You pretend like because there was a bigger purpose that the statement they made about the US not being founded on Christianity doesn't exist. It does it exist. It was made and signed into law. The intent of the statement was clear. The US was NOT founded on Christianity.


What part of, "we don't follow orders from the Pope" (or any other church) do you think we need to use to say it? It can what is says you know, because we don't follow orders from them, and never have, it’s a big part of why those ancestors came here in the first place.


As to the word 'founded' (on Christianity), I noticed you've been saying that a lot lately. I didn't say our government was founded on Christianity, I said our nation IS and WAS a Christian nation and that the founders would not have been able to conceive of America ever NOT BEING a Christian nation. We are a Christian people, a religious people, that presuppose the existence of the Supreme Being in our institutions. And we still do. I've been saying it all along and you keep trying to pretend that I've said something I haven't. It's called a strawman.

I'd like you to explain yourself. Why would a country based on a religion be a good idea? What are the advantages of such a country?

This doesn't really answer your question but it should be noted, many European countries have state churches: eg - The Church of England, The Chuch of Norway, The Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, The Roman Catholic Church (which is the state church of Malta, Andorra, Liechtenstein) and the Greek Orthodox Church. These countries (some of which are highly irreligious despite have state churches) seem to get by just fine.

This doesn't really answer your question but it should be noted, many European countries have state churches: eg - The Church of England, The Chuch of Norway, The Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, The Roman Catholic Church (which is the state church of Malta, Andorra, Liechtenstein) and the Greek Orthodox Church. These countries (some of which are highly irreligious despite have state churches) seem to get by just fine.
That is part of what made America different.

That is part of what made America different.

Definitely! The US had no federally-established church (although some of the original 13 colonies had their own established churches that continued into the early 1800s) and yet the US has turned out to be a highly religious nation. Even parts of the country normally associated with liberalism and secularism (such as New England and the West Coast) are still more religious than much of continental Europe.

Definitely! The US had no federally-established church (although some of the original 13 colonies had their own established churches that continued into the early 1800s) and yet the US has turned out to be a highly religious nation. Even parts of the country normally associated with liberalism and secularism (such as New England and the West Coast) are still more religious than much of continental Europe.
It doesn't bother me at all how religious people in a country are... It only bothers me when people try to direct a government towards catering to those individuals without respect to others, no matter how much a minority.

snip

Greenlander, how difficult is it to differentiate between a nation filled with Christians and a Christian Nation? You keep stumbling over that very important distinction.

Greenlander, how difficult is it to differentiate between a nation filled with Christians and a Christian Nation? You keep stumbling over that very important distinction.

I don't find it at all difficult actually. I say a Christian Nation and Jacobia, TCT, EA and others jump all over my ass... But that's fine because I do believe that the US can presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being without being unconstitutional, despite what the ACLA, the Atheists and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and posters here would have us believe.

What part of, "we don't follow orders from the Pope" (or any other church) do you think we need to use to say it? It can what is says you know, because we don't follow orders from them, and never have, it’s a big part of why those ancestors came here in the first place.

The point wasn't we don't follow orders from the Pope. Many European nations didn't either. The point, specifically stated as such, is that we were not founded on Christianity. No matter how you try to torture the information it will not confess to stating otherwise.

As to the word 'founded' (on Christianity), I noticed you've been saying that a lot lately. I didn't say our government was founded on Christianity, I said our nation IS and WAS a Christian nation and that the founders would not have been able to conceive of America ever NOT BEING a Christian nation. We are a Christian people, a religious people, that presuppose the existence of the Supreme Being in our institutions. And we still do. I've been saying it all along and you keep trying to pretend that I've said something I haven't. It's called a strawman.
Many of the founders were not Christian. A religious people and a Christian people are not necessarily the same thing. That many of the founders, most even, presupposed a Supreme Being does not make them Christians. You've been shown time and again that many of them disliked Christianity (or more importantly what it had become) and many of them can be quoted as saying they DID NOT believe in the divinity of Christ. To suggest they couldn't conceive of a non-Christian nation when many of the founders were non-Christian is ludicrous.

As far as your strawman, let's see what I was really responding to, shall we?

Hahahaha... TCT beating a dead horse. Didn’t want to recite ALL of the sentence from that treaty did ya?. :rolleyes:

That was already throughly debunked in this thread, why bring it up again? Finish the quote and explain the topic...

Debunked because it was shown earlier that it is a much longer sentence and where you ended it is not the end of the sentence AND that the sentence was entirely an explanation of why the US would NOT attack them simply because they were Muslims AND they wanted the pirates to know that we would honor the treaty.

We are arguing about your inability to understand that the treaty specifically made the point that we WERE NOT founded on Christianity, yet you keep claiming it does not say that. Oddly, it not only says it but it says it IN THOSE WORDS.

Last I checked we haven't been arguing about the non-Christian thing for half a dozen pages, so make out like that's what we're talking about. I brought up and TCT brought up the Treaty of Tripoli this time in regards to a poster that claimed that the country was founded on Christianity. Contrary to what you might think this thread is not all about you.

Either way, the founders conceived of and created a non-Christian nation and the country was not founded on Christianity. Your inability to recognize the obviousness of this statement doesn't change that it is true.

I don't find it at all difficult actually. I say a Christian Nation and Jacobia, TCT, EA and others jump all over my ass... But that's fine because I do believe that the US can presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being without being unconstitutional, despite what the ACLA, the Atheists and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and posters here would have us believe.
You keep pretending that even if we presuppose a Supreme Being that we must be Christian. Last I checked there are a few hundred religions that are non-Christian and presuppose a Supreme Being. While most of the people of the colonies and of the current US presuppose a Supreme Being, that in no way makes us a Christian nation.

I don't find it at all difficult actually. I say a Christian Nation and Jacobia, TCT, EA and others jump all over my ass... But that's fine because I do believe that the US can presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being without being unconstitutional, despite what the ACLA, the Atheists and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and posters here would have us believe.
No it can't.

I don't find it at all difficult actually. I say a Christian Nation and Jacobia, TCT, EA and others jump all over my ass... But that's fine because I do believe that the US can presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being without being unconstitutional, despite what the ACLA, the Atheists and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and posters here would have us believe.

That's because we are not a Christian Nation. To suggest that says if you aren't a Christian; you don't belong here.

To have the goverments endorse and or support one religion goes against the Constitution.

Americans United and the ACLU have never said you can't belive in God. You just can't use tax money to support your belief, you can't use public classrooms to push your belief, you can't expect a Religious Test to be a citizen of this country.

Let's hit some dropped points, shall we?

You claim the state constitutions demonstrate the founders intents in the first amendment. Here is a point you've never responded to.

Name one state constitution that was ratified while the founding fathers were alive AND after the fourteenth amendment applied the first amendment to the states. *Waits*

If you can't name one then the state constitution have no bearing on the founders' intentions behind the first amendment. I think that was rather clear. I'm not sure how you're missing the point.

Here is the entirety.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It makes several points, thus the semicolons.

1. The US is not founded on the Christian religion.
2. The US has nothing against Muslims in general.
3. The US has never entered into a war with any Muslim nation.

And because of those reasons there are no religious reasons for there to be conflict between the nations. However, the context doesn't change the fact that the treaty declares that those three points are, in fact, true. To claim otherwise is simply to ignore the text.

Either way, to presuppose a Supreme Being is to not equally respect religions that do not recognize a Supreme Being, but that's your point, isn't it? You don't advocate freedom of religion. You advocate freedom of your religion.


You have attempted again and again to bring schools into it to evidence their intent.

Even the deist among them, and the altogether atheists or anti-religious non-godly members of them, ever conceived that education might not involve teaching from the Bible (just for an example) so now how far do you have to deceive yourselves to think that they supported the modern day liberal interpretation of 'separation of church and state.'

To better understand Fisher Ames let's look at what other things he thought, On September 20, 1789, Fisher Ames was quoted in Paladian Magazine, giving us a preview of the American education dilemma of today:

''We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools. We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children, containing fables and moral lessons. ''We're spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man-made book.''
The first amendment establishment clause author of the “Freedom of Religion” as it applies to public educating, would seem to disagree with the idea presented before us today with the modern day concept held by the left…

“Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples, captivating and noble. In no book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant; and by teaching all the same book, they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith.”

Each time you try to tie the views of the founding fathers on schools to the views of the founding fathers on the first amendment, I point out that it is not relevant and why it's not. Each time you ignore it, only to make the claim later.

Not relevant. The first amendment did not apply to the states, and thus not to schools, at the time Ames was alive. His opinion on what should and should not be taught in schools had no bearing on an amendment that ONLY applied to the federal government AT THE TIME.

No matter how hard you try the opinions of the founding fathers on religion and school is not AT ALL related to the first amendment because without the fourteenth amendment they do not affect each other. It's clear that the bill of rights was only an attempt to limit the federal goverment but the fourteenth amendment changed the landscape. Thus there general opinions on seperation of Church and State are FAR more relevant.

You keep making this argument and you keep getting informed that the schools at the time did not fall under the first amendment and now they do and that has nothing to do with a reinterpretation of the first amendment and everything to do with the addition of the fourteenth amendment. (there, now I stated it three different ways. Hopefully, it won't be necessary to point it out again.)

The First Amendment and the intentions of the founding fathers in writing and ratifying it have NOTHING to do with their views on public schooling. Nothing.

Lalalala. How about addressing the points that have been made that actually relate to the topic instead of constantly dragging the topic into the weeds by pretending like our points to one poster don't relate to what the poster said or pretending like state practices at the time of the founders have ANYTHING to do with their views of the first amendment.

Yes it does change it. It changes it entirely. Now it says that the US is not a part of the european conglomerate that Christian europe was, the "Us vs. Them" mentality of responding to and declaring wars etc., with the Muslim states, based on the opinions of the Pope or other church authorities. That unlike europoeans with royal families etc., the US was NOT obliged to declare war against them simply because they are Muslims (ALSO: the pirates had a history of breaking treaties with non-Muslims because they didn't feel obliged to respect them and the US ambassador was trying to find a way to overcome that feeling).

Nice tap-dance. Still doesn't change the direct declaration that the US is not founded on Christianity.


That case doesn't say anything about the how far the first amendment goes in allowing the schools and for acknowleding or not acknowledging God in government institutions either, but you used it for that, simply for a quote.

But if you want to quote cases out of context, then we can all do that can't we ... :rolleyes:

I never said the case said "say anything about the how far the first amendment goes in allowing the schools and for acknowleding or not acknowledging God in government institutions either." I merely used the case to refute the assertion that the wall of separation of Church and State is a new idea forced on the nation in the last 40 years.

Quoted out of context, my ass. The context only helps my side. Here is the full context:

Reynolds v United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, 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. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

I don't find it at all difficult actually. I say a Christian Nation and Jacobia, TCT, EA and others jump all over my ass... But that's fine because I do believe that the US can presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being without being unconstitutional, despite what the ACLA, the Atheists and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and posters here would have us believe.

Where you go astray is when you confuse a Christian nation with a nation of Christians and suggest the government can adopt or promote religious propositions.

The people of the US may be predominately Christian. They may believe whatever they wish to believe -- because of, not in spite of, the First Amendment.

That's because we are not a Christian Nation. To suggest that says if you aren't a Christian; you don't belong here.

To have the goverments endorse and or support one religion goes against the Constitution.

Americans United and the ACLU have never said you can't belive in God. You just can't use tax money to support your belief, you can't use public classrooms to push your belief, you can't expect a Religious Test to be a citizen of this country.

Amen.

Where you go astray is when you confuse a Christian nation with a nation of Christians and suggest the government can adopt or promote religious propositions.

The people of the US may be predominately Christian. They may believe whatever they wish to believe -- because of, not in spite of, the First Amendment.
He's not going to get this.

He's not going to get this.

He's never going to get any of it. :headbang:

But it is fun pointing out how wrong he gets things. :D

He's never going to get any of it. :headbang:

But it is fun pointing out how wrong he gets things. :D
But it's sad that far too much of the population thinks exactly this way. No doubt from Preachers that Preach this...

But it's sad that far too much of the population thinks exactly this way. No doubt from Preachers that Preach this...

The sad part is that they don't realize that they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. When freedom of religion is protected all religious beliefs win. When it is abridged, only one religion wins and all others lose. And in almost every case when that happens the man in charge ends up being someone pretending to be the voice of the great and powerful 'Oz' and telling us not to pay any attention to man behind the curtain swilling whiskey and dancing on a carpet made of live bunnies.

Oh blah blah blah, you all sure like to sit around in your circle jerks around here a lot, patting each other on the backs and claiming victory when you have accomplished nothing. :rolleyes:

I can't imagine how much worse off America would be if we all thought like this group ... If there were nothing but "text and tradition" (deference to precedence) judges in the world, one would have to conclude that laws such as the much referred to around here misogyny laws (for example), would NOT have been found to violate the original intent of the Framers and therefore would have NOT been ruled unconstitutional.

Thankfully though, that wasn’t the case. What does work though is the almost forgotten (almost forgotten in this forum anyway) subdivision of constitution interpretation ~ the "natural law" interpretation view of the constitution, but it still exists yet today outside of this forum. Those of us that think of “natural law” application agree that Justices should give deference to precedence and legal tradition before them AND that they must follow the original intent of the Constitution... However, ‘original intent’ is not so much located in just particular writings like The Federalist Papers but mostly self evident in the document that gave birth to the concept that the people of our country did agree to follow themselves with their very lives at stake, the Declaration of Independence.

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." A member of the Supreme Court should only distinguish whether the Constitution’s guarantee of "liberty" overrides laws preventing interracial marriage (sticking with the example given above) by understanding the nature of the liberty given to every person by natural law ~ what the Declaration calls the "unalienable" right to liberty with which all people, regardless of race,” are endowed by their Creator" over-rides “text and tradition,” deference to precedence was thrown out on it’s ear.

To most Americans this view seems like good old fashioned common sense ~ the Declaration declares our fundamental principles and the Constitution forms a government designed to put those principles into practice. But his approach is mocked and ridiculed or disparaged by today’s self-appointed guardians of the far left and many of them are lawyers, judges, and law school professors. They think this ideology "naive" or elementary and simpleton.

However, history argues against this modern view, “the natural law approach” once held the dominate view of American jurisprudence. Even the far left’s heroes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed, that the best funnel to understanding the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence and it’s philosophy of natural rights. The natural law approach was predominate, so common in fact that the early SCOTUS rulings, like Calder v. Bull (1798), claimed that even laws "not expressly restrained by the Constitution" should be struck down if they violate natural rights. This type of interpretation held weight all the way through the Civil War era, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly appealed to the legal authority of the Declaration in his fight against slavery.

One such Justice today would be Clarence Thomas, despite what you think of him personally, he hands down judgments that make sense. And like the forefathers and Thomas today, I don’t think the very grantor of the unalienable rights themselves can be taken away from us by a script of paper, no matter who signs it…

Oh blah blah blah, you all sure like to sit around in your circle jerks around here a lot, patting each other on the backs and claiming victory when you have accomplished nothing. :rolleyes:

I can't imagine how much worse off America would be if we all thought like this group ... If there were nothing but "text and tradition" (deference to precedence) judges in the world, one would have to conclude that laws such as the much referred to around here misogyny laws (for example), would NOT have been found to violate the original intent of the Framers and therefore would have NOT been ruled unconstitutional.

Thankfully though, that wasn’t the case. What does work though is the almost forgotten (almost forgotten in this forum anyway) subdivision of constitution interpretation ~ the "natural law" interpretation view of the constitution, but it still exists yet today outside of this forum. Those of us that think of “natural law” application agree that Justices should give deference to precedence and legal tradition before them AND that they must follow the original intent of the Constitution... However, ‘original intent’ is not so much located in just particular writings like The Federalist Papers but mostly self evident in the document that gave birth to the concept that the people of our country did agree to follow themselves with their very lives at stake, the Declaration of Independence.

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." A member of the Supreme Court should only distinguish whether the Constitution’s guarantee of "liberty" overrides laws preventing interracial marriage (sticking with the example given above) by understanding the nature of the liberty given to every person by natural law ~ what the Declaration calls the "unalienable" right to liberty with which all people, regardless of race,” are endowed by their Creator" over-rides “text and tradition,” deference to precedence was thrown out on it’s ear.

To most Americans this view seems like good old fashioned common sense ~ the Declaration declares our fundamental principles and the Constitution forms a government designed to put those principles into practice. But his approach is mocked and ridiculed or disparaged by today’s self-appointed guardians of the far left and many of them are lawyers, judges, and law school professors. They think this ideology "naive" or elementary and simpleton.

However, history argues against this modern view, “the natural law approach” once held the dominate view of American jurisprudence. Even the far left’s heroes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed, that the best funnel to understanding the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence and it’s philosophy of natural rights. The natural law approach was predominate, so common in fact that the early SCOTUS rulings, like Calder v. Bull (1798), claimed that even laws "not expressly restrained by the Constitution" should be struck down if they violate natural rights. This type of interpretation held weight all the way through the Civil War era, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly appealed to the legal authority of the Declaration in his fight against slavery.

One such Justice today would be Clarence Thomas, despite what you think of him personally, he hands down judgments that make sense. And like the forefathers and Thomas today, I don’t think the very grantor of the unalienable rights themselves can be taken away from us by a script of paper, no matter who signs it…

The flaw in your argument is that you pretend like in order for their to be natural law someone must have written that law. There is no reason to believe this MUST be the case.

The second flaw is that you believe that if we don't allow people to be forced to endorse the Creator that we are denying his existence. I am a devout Christian, but as Christ did I believe in the seperation of Church and State. My faith does not have need the support of government and the government is not capable of faith. The only thing that putting God into law, putting him in the school, putting him on the money and in the pledge accomplishes is that it forces people who don't have faith to support those of us who do. My faith stands strong without it. My faith can be communicated to others without the support of GWB and his cronies. My faith can and will continue to thrive without thrusting it upon others. Miraculously, coming to people with understanding and kindness will ALWAYS work better for softening their heart, then forcing my faith upon others using law. Build your strawman about us denying the existence of a Creator elsewhere. Not mentioning Him in law is not the same as denying His existence.

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." A member of the Supreme Court should only distinguish whether the Constitution’s guarantee of "liberty" overrides laws preventing interracial marriage (sticking with the example given above) by understanding the nature of the liberty given to every person by natural law ~ what the Declaration calls the "unalienable" right to liberty with which all people, regardless of race,” are endowed by their Creator" over-rides “text and tradition,” deference to precedence was thrown out on it’s ear.

To argue that the Constitution forbids laws restricting interracial marriage based on its incorporation of the Declaration of Independence is to throw originalism out the window. Laws against "miscegenation" *were* constitutional until the passage of the 14th amendment. If an "originalist" found himself sitting as a federal judge in the 1850's, he'd have ruled in favor of such laws.

Also, the Declaration was not ratified by the states, was written 11 years before the Constitution, using diplomatic rather than than legal terminology, and ratified by an entirely different (and unelected) Congress, making it an extremely problematic source for determining the original intent of the meaning of the Constitution.

If you really hold originalism dear, you should spend more time reading about the history of the Constitution and the debates surrounding it and the 27 amendments.

*SNIP* Lame insult
*SNIP* Strawman
*SNIP*
However, ‘original intent’ is not so much located in just particular writings like The Federalist Papers


Interesting. And have you read the Federalist Papers? I kind of doubt that you have by the way you reference them.


but mostly self evident in the document that gave birth to the concept that the people of our country did agree to follow themselves with their very lives at stake, the Declaration of Independence.


Ok once again. The DOI was supplanted by the Constitution. It is not a valid for an argument about the CONSTITUTION.


The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence."


The Constitution talks about seperating from England? Wow missed that part.


Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."


And what is Nature's God? Gaea? Are we Druids?

If Jefferson was going to raise Christianity he would have said the laws of God.

*SNIP* Natural law argument. I will leave it to others.


One such Justice today would be Clarence Thomas, despite what you think of him personally, he hands down judgments that make sense. And like the forefathers and Thomas today, I don’t think the very grantor of the unalienable rights themselves can be taken away from us by a script of paper, no matter who signs it…

Clarence Thomas????? :D :D :D That's your argument? :D :D :D

Clarence is a sorry assed excuse of a replacement for Thurgood Marshall.

Oh blah blah blah, you all sure like to sit around in your circle jerks around here a lot, patting each other on the backs and claiming victory when you have accomplished nothing. :rolleyes:

…
Again, an excellent example of sophomoric wit. Oh touche, touche.
Now are you gonna flash brilliance and "turn it around" on me?
You're prwned, wear it like a demerit ...
instead of wearing it like Nigel did in "Top Secret!" after the bull mounted him.

;P

I'd like you to explain yourself. Why would a country based on a religion be a good idea? What are the advantages of such a country? ?
Well .... as the button says,
If you want a country run on religious principles,
TRY IRAN.

Sure is working out for them!

I said our nation IS and WAS a Christian nation and that the founders would not have been able to conceive of America ever NOT BEING a Christian nation. We are a Christian people, a religious people, that presuppose the existence of the Supreme Being in our institutions.
I'm not. Never. Not religious, not "Christ"ian. I do not presuppose the existence of some kind of "Supreme Being" in our institutions. I've noticed that it is a mechanism of all power institutions to allude to some greater lurking force to qualify its authority, although when the "authority" is displayed, it is ALMOST ALWAYS a malicious and bestial exemplification of carnality of human networking behaviour, when pushed far enough.
Of course, i could change a little and say the whole reason Florida got swamped so bad last year is because that arsehole brother of the bigger arsehole helped turn votes there and they got what they deserved ... but then i'd start sounding like someone else who insinuated something they weren't privy to regarding a school board vote in Dover.
It's called a strawman.
And thou, pot, screameth:. Black indeed.

Oh blah blah blah, you all sure like to sit around in your circle jerks around here a lot, patting each other on the backs and claiming victory when you have accomplished nothing. :rolleyes:

I can't imagine how much worse off America would be if we all thought like this group ... If there were nothing but "text and tradition" (deference to precedence) judges in the world, one would have to conclude that laws such as the much referred to around here misogyny laws (for example), would NOT have been found to violate the original intent of the Framers and therefore would have NOT been ruled unconstitutional.

Thankfully though, that wasn’t the case. What does work though is the almost forgotten (almost forgotten in this forum anyway) subdivision of constitution interpretation ~ the "natural law" interpretation view of the constitution, but it still exists yet today outside of this forum. Those of us that think of “natural law” application agree that Justices should give deference to precedence and legal tradition before them AND that they must follow the original intent of the Constitution... However, ‘original intent’ is not so much located in just particular writings like The Federalist Papers but mostly self evident in the document that gave birth to the concept that the people of our country did agree to follow themselves with their very lives at stake, the Declaration of Independence.

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." A member of the Supreme Court should only distinguish whether the Constitution’s guarantee of "liberty" overrides laws preventing interracial marriage (sticking with the example given above) by understanding the nature of the liberty given to every person by natural law ~ what the Declaration calls the "unalienable" right to liberty with which all people, regardless of race,” are endowed by their Creator" over-rides “text and tradition,” deference to precedence was thrown out on it’s ear.

To most Americans this view seems like good old fashioned common sense ~ the Declaration declares our fundamental principles and the Constitution forms a government designed to put those principles into practice. But his approach is mocked and ridiculed or disparaged by today’s self-appointed guardians of the far left and many of them are lawyers, judges, and law school professors. They think this ideology "naive" or elementary and simpleton.

However, history argues against this modern view, “the natural law approach” once held the dominate view of American jurisprudence. Even the far left’s heroes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed, that the best funnel to understanding the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence and it’s philosophy of natural rights. The natural law approach was predominate, so common in fact that the early SCOTUS rulings, like Calder v. Bull (1798), claimed that even laws "not expressly restrained by the Constitution" should be struck down if they violate natural rights. This type of interpretation held weight all the way through the Civil War era, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly appealed to the legal authority of the Declaration in his fight against slavery.

One such Justice today would be Clarence Thomas, despite what you think of him personally, he hands down judgments that make sense. And like the forefathers and Thomas today, I don’t think the very grantor of the unalienable rights themselves can be taken away from us by a script of paper, no matter who signs it…
And this has what to do with Seperation of Church and State? Many different types of religious and athiest traditions support "natural rights."
You're groping and playing the victim card.

Well .... as the button says,
If you want a country run on religious principles,
TRY IRAN.

Sure is working out for them!
Happy happy joy joy.

Oh blah blah blah, you all sure like to sit around in your circle jerks around here a lot, patting each other on the backs and claiming victory when you have accomplished nothing. :rolleyes:

I can't imagine how much worse off America would be if we all thought like this group ... If there were nothing but "text and tradition" (deference to precedence) judges in the world, one would have to conclude that laws such as the much referred to around here misogyny laws (for example), would NOT have been found to violate the original intent of the Framers and therefore would have NOT been ruled unconstitutional.

Thankfully though, that wasn’t the case. What does work though is the almost forgotten (almost forgotten in this forum anyway) subdivision of constitution interpretation ~ the "natural law" interpretation view of the constitution, but it still exists yet today outside of this forum. Those of us that think of “natural law” application agree that Justices should give deference to precedence and legal tradition before them AND that they must follow the original intent of the Constitution... However, ‘original intent’ is not so much located in just particular writings like The Federalist Papers but mostly self evident in the document that gave birth to the concept that the people of our country did agree to follow themselves with their very lives at stake, the Declaration of Independence.

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence." Yeah yeah, I know, the Constitution was initially proposed to replace the Articles of Confederation and create "a more perfect Union, BUT a “more perfect Union" means a Union that more perfectly embraced the principles for which they risked their lives and fortunes in the Revolutionary War and the DoI.

According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." A member of the Supreme Court should only distinguish whether the Constitution’s guarantee of "liberty" overrides laws preventing interracial marriage (sticking with the example given above) by understanding the nature of the liberty given to every person by natural law ~ what the Declaration calls the "unalienable" right to liberty with which all people, regardless of race,” are endowed by their Creator" over-rides “text and tradition,” deference to precedence was thrown out on it’s ear.

To most Americans this view seems like good old fashioned common sense ~ the Declaration declares our fundamental principles and the Constitution forms a government designed to put those principles into practice. But his approach is mocked and ridiculed or disparaged by today’s self-appointed guardians of the far left and many of them are lawyers, judges, and law school professors. They think this ideology "naive" or elementary and simpleton.

However, history argues against this modern view, “the natural law approach” once held the dominate view of American jurisprudence. Even the far left’s heroes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed, that the best funnel to understanding the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence and it’s philosophy of natural rights. The natural law approach was predominate, so common in fact that the early SCOTUS rulings, like Calder v. Bull (1798), claimed that even laws "not expressly restrained by the Constitution" should be struck down if they violate natural rights. This type of interpretation held weight all the way through the Civil War era, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly appealed to the legal authority of the Declaration in his fight against slavery.

One such Justice today would be Clarence Thomas, despite what you think of him personally, he hands down judgments that make sense. And like the forefathers and Thomas today, I don’t think the very grantor of the unalienable rights themselves can be taken away from us by a script of paper, no matter who signs it…

I love how, having lost the argument over original intent and precedent, you are know in support of activist judges that impose their own sense of "natural law."

Welcome to being a liberal when it comes to jurisprudence.

No one is trying to take your silly little God away from you. To the contrary, we fervently defend your right to worship. What you cannot do is use the power of government to enforce or support your beliefs. It is that simple.

(And Clarence Thomas is one of the worst Justices ever.)

The ’original intention’ of the Constitution, the part that should hold weight with us yet today, is the parts that fulfill "the ideals of the Declaration of Independence."

Meh.

Almost nothing in the DofI is reflected in the Constitution. They were written at different times for entirely different purposes.

You only say this because of the quasi-religious references in the DofI.


According to the Declaration, America’s basic moral and political principles are found in "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God."

Bullshit.

The DofI does not say that.

Moreoever, note the difference between "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and Christianity.

To most Americans this view seems like good old fashioned common sense ~ the Declaration declares our fundamental principles and the Constitution forms a government designed to put those principles into practice. But his approach is mocked and ridiculed or disparaged by today’s self-appointed guardians of the far left and many of them are lawyers, judges, and law school professors. They think this ideology "naive" or elementary and simpleton.

This "ideology" is a jumble of nonsense. It is "naive", elementary, and simpleton

Even the far left’s heroes, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed, that the best funnel to understanding the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence and it’s philosophy of natural rights.

Bullshit. Provide proof please.

The natural law approach was predominate, so common in fact that the early SCOTUS rulings, like Calder v. Bull (1798), claimed that even laws "not expressly restrained by the Constitution" should be struck down if they violate natural rights.

You pick an odd case to cite and then you completely misread it. The law in question in that case was not "struck down" because it was not expressly forbidden by the Constitution (i.e., it wasn't an ex post facto law).

Don't religious people realize that keeping all religion out of schools helps them?

I spent my formative years in the UK, when the C of E was mandatory in school. Every day started with hymns and prayers. And at every major religious holiday we had to perform in themed plays. (I played the inkeeper one christmas. I still remember my lines: "No room at the inn!".) Even worse, once a month the local vicar would show up and bore the pants of us with a two hour speech about .... well something to do with god; honestly, no-one paid any attention to him.

Unsuprisingly this process turned 90% of us into atheists. (Not that I personally disapprove of the outcome, you can't argue with results).

For the "understanding impaired", I'll define two commonly misused and misinterpreted documents:

1: The Declaration of Independence was a list of grievances compiled to be sent to the King of England (George III). It outlined each offense and essentially stated that the newfangled "United States of America" would no longer operate under British rule.

2: The Constitution of the United States of America was created to replace the defunct Articles of Confederation that had been unsuccessfully ruling the USA since the 1780s. The Constitution laid out the general guidelines for the government of the USA (much-expanded in its 200+ years) as well as the fundamental basis of Federalism (see Federalist Papers, #10 and 51 for further elaboration on Federalism in the USA).

The only thing in common between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is that they were written... in the same country? In the same century? With a few common authors? The reasoning was different, the purpose was different. If you compare the two as "compatible sources" you clearly don't understand either document and lose some credibility on the topic. Just in case you didn't get that from the last few posts on here :rolleyes: ...


"I said our nation IS and WAS a Christian nation and that the founders would not have been able to conceive of America ever NOT BEING a Christian nation. We are a Christian people, a religious people, that presuppose the existence of the Supreme Being in our institutions." -Greenland (still can't figure out multiple freakin' quotes)

Now this is a little... inflammatory. I'll be sure to send this along to my multinational friends... I'm sure they'd appreciate learning that they live in a nation that was and is still conceived as a CHRISTIAN NATION. I bet they'd love that. Such a newsflash to them.

Don't religious people realize that keeping all religion out of schools helps them?

I spent my formative years in the UK, when the C of E was mandatory in school. Every day started with hymns and prayers. And at every major religious holiday we had to perform in themed plays. (I played the inkeeper one christmas. I still remember my lines: "No room at the inn!".) Even worse, once a month the local vicar would show up and bore the pants of us with a two hour speech about .... well something to do with god; honestly, no-one paid any attention to him.

Unsuprisingly this process turned 90% of us into atheists. (Not that I personally disapprove of the outcome, you can't argue with results).

No. Many seem to think the First Amendment is hostile to religion, when really it is why religion has flourished in the US.

(And Clarence Thomas is one of the worst Justices ever.)
His comment about Thomas almost makes me think he's satirical.

Happy happy joy joy.
That's butt-shakin' music if i ever heard it!!!!!