Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
You can't find the exact word "privacy" in there either, so does that mean that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th amendments don't work together to create privacy rights of citizens against the government?
This is a boneheaded and incorrect way to study the law. You've proven yourself ignorant by ignoring the existence of the due process clause and the whole body of case law on this topic and that of the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states and all governmental entities.
I would really like to know where you get your very, very incorrect information about the law.
Bob Jones U?
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.
It was largely about limiting the power of the Federal government. That's why it says "Congress shall make no law". It says NOTHING about states making laws regarding religion.
So you're completely ignorant about Incorporation, huh?
Right...I'd have to go along with it, and I would have no choice. So, I wouldn't like it if more than half of a "True Democracy" voted my business to be proscribed.
But I bet I wouldn't like it a lot less than the people that were allowed by law to be held as slaves based on the decision of the men that voted that to be legal under the "Constitutional Republic" system we have.
Please read my last post to you again.
Why use the potential oppression of minority groups/entities under a "True Democracy" as an argument against it...when the system we have now has not only demonstrated it has the potential to oppress, but has ACTUALLY DONE IT?
The more people you have voting...the more you shield against any group getting together and conspiring to vote so as to further some biased agenda.
You also assure that you are satisfying the will of the most people possible...not the will of the majority of less than a thousand, that may not accurately represent their constituency due to personal agenda and/or bias, or a misread of the desires of the people they represent.
I'm not saying that our form of government is perfect, yes, its has its flaws. As our society progresses so does our laws, however, under your idea of a "True Demoracy" there is no room for this, you are at the whims of the majority and the rule of law flies out the window. You bring up the oppression of the minority, will my friend, under a "True Demoracy" you would see this in full effect with no recourse for appeal, only when the majority voted to change would change take place and that is a scary concept. Hitler was elected to power in Germany under a liberal demoracy then he use this demoracy to destroy any whom the 'majority" saw fit to do so, there again you have "true demoracy" in action.
I'm not saying that our form of government is perfect, yes, its has its flaws. As our society progresses so does our laws, however, under your idea of a "True Demoracy" there is no room for this, you are at the whims of the majority and the rule of law flies out the window. You bring up the oppression of the minority, will my friend, under a "True Demoracy" you would see this in full effect with no recourse for appeal, only when the majority voted to change would change take place and that is a scary concept. Hitler was elected to power in Germany under a liberal demoracy then he use this demoracy to destroy any whom the 'majority" saw fit to do so, there again you have "true demoracy" in action.
I don't bring up "the oppression of the minority"...that's what others bring up as the main potential flaw of "True Democracy".
And I agree that it is a potential problem.
But I still don't see the logic in the argument.
So, our current system that "has it flaws" as respects oppressing minorities...to the point of enslaving one race of people (Blacks) for over a hundred years, and just about carrying out a full genocide (Native Americans) of another, as well as oppressing a gender (women) for almost 150 years...is deemed superior to a system that has done similar elsewhere in the world?
Common sense dictates that you greatly mitigate the potential for evil being perpetrated by the decision of a vote, by getting the vote of as many as possible.
Just based on raw statistics...there is a much better chance of getting half of 600 people to conspire on some prejudicial agenda, than it would be to get half of 200 million.
The more people voting...the more it dilutes the chance for truly evil bias to manifest through the vote.
Also, if the premise is that "True Democracy" is not workable because of oppressive acts that would be carried out through biased laws voted into enactment due to the prejudicial propensity of the general population...how could a government composed of individuals selected from those people be reasonably expected to do better?
Gldnrule, it may work if you got every one of the 300 million people to vote, but that isn't going to happen at most you could get maybe, just maybe 35% to vote, so that leaves the other 65% at the whims of those who have voted. Sure it would be their own fault because they didn't vote, but irregardless the out come would still be the same.
It was largely about limiting the power of the Federal government. That's why it says "Congress shall make no law". It says NOTHING about states making laws regarding religion.
Seriously...you guys need to establish the fact that this mythological separation actually exists. It doesn't.[/quote]
TheoGeek, you mention the separation of church and state as being mythological, perhaps you would care to explain these particular Supreme Court cases that say differently and these are states making the laws that you were speaking of. It seems as though alot of people seem to forget about the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court in the past 50 years or so that seem to say differently. Here's the links if you care to read...
More Christian mis-direction running rampant, it seems...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
You do realize the concept of a separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution, right?
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?
It was largely about limiting the power of the Federal government. That's why it says "Congress shall make no law". It says NOTHING about states making laws regarding religion.
Seriously...you guys need to establish the fact that this mythological separation actually exists. It doesn't.
Then please, oh wise one do tell us how a nation founded upon religious freedom and equality can maintain those successfully without a separation of religion and government? HINT: IT CANNOT
It's funny, and rather telling that you Christians are the only group opposed to keeping them separate (well you're OK with keeping all non Christian religions separate, of course). I guarantee that if Muslims were the majority religion in the country your tune would change in a hearbeat. That wall of separation would suddenly be more important than prayer in schools and the ten commandments on courthouse lawns...
Gldnrule, it may work if you got every one of the 300 million people to vote, but that isn't going to happen at most you could get maybe, just maybe 35% to vote, so that leaves the other 65% at the whims of those who have voted. Sure it would be their own fault because they didn't vote, but irregardless the out come would still be the same.
You have a point there Terryj...MOF I saw this once and found it again:
People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd
Though I still think it would be a better shield against conspired bias to have 35% of the voting population making the decisions, than just a thousand or so self-serving, agenda-driven, politicians and judges.
The system we have now is the one put together by people writing about how "All men are created equal and have the right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness"...while at the same time voting and making rules/laws that enslaving other people, oppressing other people, and just about wiping out an entire race of people, was cool.
They voted that way because, for all they espoused to the contrary...they were actually brutal, heinous, selfish, evil, chauvinistic, slavemaster, killers...that wanted land, money, and power.
But they were the ones that called the shots for everyone with their votes and decisions...so we got the horrible rules/laws they wanted to fulfill their own agenda...even though they themselves knew all of that was wrong, and documented that it was.
It's easier to get a hall full of 5 or 6 hundred people to vote some messed up laws into place...than it would be to get millions of people to decide it's a good thing to do.
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.
As per the blue bolded above.
If you go by their ACTIONS, instead of the words they fronted with...It's A FACT that's what they preferred.
All the TV Evangelists put together didn't do more to promote and inculcate religion into the society than those guys did.
You don't finance the building of churches with tax money, print Bibles and distribute them to schools as textbooks, send out preachers to convert the indigenous people & put up a giant painting of one of their women being baptized in the Capitol, and turn the government buildings into churches on Sundays, if that isn't your preference, and mission.
Objective PROOF, and empirical EVIDENCE that that's what they preferred, and that's what they wanted.
It seems you forget/ignore rifle...those so-called "founders" ACTUALLY DID DO all those things you said in your post that the government can't do.
AND, in fact, they did it so efficiently and successfully...the influence of it continues very heavily to this day.
There is no disputing it except by the ignorant and those in complete denial.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
More Christian mis-direction running rampant, it seems...
