U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,805 posts, read 14,329,327 times
Reputation: 4775

Advertisements

Even if "they" did prefer it (and since many of them were Deists, I don't think many of them did), it is still wrong because it is undemocratic. Thoughtful theists (such as the Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) realize that the establishment of a particular religion by government leads to all sorts of problems. Religion is damaged as much by government as government is by religion. Having it out of government works to the advantage of both.

Last edited by catman; 12-19-2011 at 01:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2011, 07:24 AM
 
5,041 posts, read 1,362,513 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Sorry, but you must have The Highly Abridged and Selectively Interpreted Christian Version of the Constitution.

Tough luck though: First Amendment: "No establishment of religion".

Specifically:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

But then, it was also correctly interpreted by many men after that to mean: "Keep your church and beliefs out of my mind and the minds of my kids! Out, I say: OUT!

Just what do you think the framers had in mind? The Federal establishment of, or preference of, a specific [Christian of course...] religion? Would that suit you? To have a state-run and mandatory Christian church, with morning prayers and a bible in every home?

BTW, "the free exercise of" specifically means that you can go off and have your own private church services all you like. Just don't impinge those ideeas or beliefs on anyone through the Federal system, or via the taxes collected from a free citizenry. Nope: you can't do that. This means: no public nativity scenes please, and no mandatory school prayers or Creationist teachings in a public forum [esp[. a science curriculum: that's just dumb!]. Sorry: Not allowed.

In other words, it means no Federal or State support for a church or a belief system at all, given the "melting pot" aspect of our national social fabric. Whose business is it anyways? Answer: it's only yours or mine, and even that is at a purely and strictly personal level!

As for the states, again: would you have them establish some sort of religious domninary? Interesting. Lemme outa here then! Off to Australia I go! (Imagine: all of America drowning in Dogmatic Intransigence and literalistic biblical stupidity... Yikes!!! )

Otherwise, what of the Buddhists, Shintoists, Mayans, Wiccans, Jews, Native Americans, Hindus, Sihks, et al? Huh? What of them, Theo? You just want to sweep them under your already bulging carpet?

I thought so.
Get it straight. The 1st amendment, in and of itself, doesn't prevent states from supporting religion. For the bulk of our history, states did support religion. Somehow, the nation with Buddhists, Jews, Wiccans, and all the rest survived.

No, the framers did not want the Federal establishment of a specific religion; the 1st amend. establishment clause prevents that. They also didn't want federal control over state treatment of religion.

Any effort to portray the founders and the 1st amendment as the strict separationists of today is doomed to failure, as evidenced by American history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 08:21 AM
 
7,902 posts, read 5,524,570 times
Reputation: 3130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I've noticed that whenever there's discussion of the 1st amendment, or original intent, or 'the founders,' the 14th amendment is brought up as a diversion.
Diversion?

LOL


I won't waste my time if you cannot understand the effect of the 14th amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 09:20 AM
 
5,041 posts, read 1,362,513 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Diversion?

LOL


I won't waste my time if you cannot understand the effect of the 14th amendment.
I understand the effect of the 14th amend., tyvm.

When the discussion is about the framers' intent, the 1st amendment, as this discussion was, yes, the 14th amend. and cases about it are a diversion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 09:48 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,993 posts, read 13,194,500 times
Reputation: 11009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
When the discussion is about the framers' intent, the 1st amendment, as this discussion was...
Let us look at the interpretation of such framers... this guy actually presented the First Amendment. His words:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
- James Madison, 1820


So, you claim that there is no such thing as separation of religion and state in the US Constitution. James Madison claims otherwise. Or, would you claim that James Madison did not understand the US Constitution and the First Amendment, or was simply lying above?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 10:33 AM
 
7,902 posts, read 5,524,570 times
Reputation: 3130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I understand the effect of the 14th amend., tyvm.

When the discussion is about the framers' intent, the 1st amendment, as this discussion was, yes, the 14th amend. and cases about it are a diversion.
Your earlier post speaks otherwise.

The 14th is not a DIVERSION. It fundamentally changed the way the Bill of Rights was applied. So yeah, it does matter unless you are just conducting some academic exercise and don't plan to discuss what the law is post-14th.

But that would be pointless.

Another huge event was civil rights legislation. A lot of things went uncorrected in the law before Congress provided a vehicle for ordinary citizens to enforce their rights.

This is one of the reasons things did not change for so long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 10:47 AM
 
5,041 posts, read 1,362,513 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Let us look at the interpretation of such framers... this guy actually presented the First Amendment. His words:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
- James Madison, 1820

So, you claim that there is no such thing as separation of religion and state in the US Constitution. James Madison claims otherwise. Or, would you claim that James Madison did not understand the US Constitution and the First Amendment, or was simply lying above?
I made no such claim. What Madison wrote or preferred isn't what the 1st amendment said. Show me something where Madison wrote that the 1st amend., As Adopted, created any separation of church and state on the state level, or a total separation at the federal level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,993 posts, read 13,194,500 times
Reputation: 11009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I made no such claim. What Madison wrote or preferred isn't what the 1st amendment said. Show me something where Madison wrote that the 1st amend., As Adopted, created any separation of church and state on the state level, or a total separation at the federal level.
Not verbatim. But he did refer to the US Constitution and that it has the idea of separation of church and state ingrained. Did he not? If he did, then the US Constitution has what you're denying. If he did not, you would associate either of the two possibilities with him:
1- He doesn't understand the US Constitution
2- He is lying

Which is it? That there is a separation of state and religion, or that Madison was wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 11:12 AM
 
5,041 posts, read 1,362,513 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Your earlier post speaks otherwise.

The 14th is not a DIVERSION. It fundamentally changed the way the Bill of Rights was applied. So yeah, it does matter unless you are just conducting some academic exercise and don't plan to discuss what the law is post-14th.

But that would be pointless.

Another huge event was civil rights legislation. A lot of things went uncorrected in the law before Congress provided a vehicle for ordinary citizens to enforce their rights.

This is one of the reasons things did not change for so long.
Well, if a discussion of the framers' intent and the 1st amend. is pointless and a mere academic exercise, feel free to not participate. It's an interesting topic to me.

When I read the historical and legally innacurate comment that the 1st amend. created a 'wall of separation' between religion and gov't., I sometimes respond with facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 11:28 AM
 
5,041 posts, read 1,362,513 times
Reputation: 1220
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Not verbatim. But he did refer to the US Constitution and that it has the idea of separation of church and state ingrained. Did he not? If he did, then the US Constitution has what you're denying. If he did not, you would associate either of the two possibilities with him:
1- He doesn't understand the US Constitution
2- He is lying

Which is it? That there is a separation of state and religion, or that Madison was wrong.
Is what you're doing called the trap of false choices ?

Madison vetoed laws that incorporated churches. OTOH, pre- and post Madison there's been prayer, chaplains in Congress. More like a picket fence than a wall pf separation. Anything from Madison on the 1st amend. and the states ?

Besides, Madison isn't the be all, end all. There were others who contributed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:08 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top