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.
...and how would I characterize your response? Stupidity?
The Supreme Court constitutes a portion of judicial branch of our government which is part of the three branches I specified in my post. In other words, if the majority of the supreme court joins forces with the executive and the legislative branch and the electorate, who's going to stop them?
Well I'll just put it this way. If the majority of all three branches of your government agree on an issue,then why should anyone be able to stop them????
As far as my comment being stupidity!!!! I agree that I misunderstood your post because how could anyone make such a dumb statement that you can't stop something when all the powers that be agree on it? Now that is a redundent and stupid statement for sure.
There is no "separation of church and state" in The US Constitution.
There is this however.... "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."
The rule you speak of is in the US Constitution, designed to protect the majority from the whims of the majority. You seem to think it was designed to push the whim of the majority.
We don’t need to watch the effects of corruption in the future. We have ample evidence from the past.
And that understanding led them to institute a separation of church and state. They were well aware of the corrupting effects of religion and the whims of the majority.
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
Madison wasn't the Founding Fathers. Wise and influential, yes, the prevailing view, no.
There were local governments that required preachers to get licenses, including Virginia.
Madison wasn't the Founding Fathers. Wise and influential, yes, the prevailing view, no.
There were local governments that required preachers to get licenses, including Virginia.
Madison was the author of the US Constitution and of the twelve amendments he proposed (ten made it thru - The Bill of Rights), that included this aspect of interference between religion and government. He wasn't speaking for all states individually, but for the central government (the "USA") but definitely wanted (hoped) that all states would also adopt the same measures to guarantee individual freedoms as opposed to a mob mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
There is no "separation of church and state" in The US Constitution.
There is this however.... "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."
That is what is summarized as a separation of church and state, including by the person who authored the amendment you quote. Missed it? Here it is again:
"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
Unless you want to claim that James Madison was utterly clueless about the Constitution of the United States.
No, not in that case...they had the "MIGHT" of the law, that fortunately most in the country agreed with (more "MIGHT"), on their side.
Fortunately, and on similar grounds, this country has been spared of theocratic push that existed when it was founded, and today, and it ain't going anywhere. But since you mentioned luck, I'm sure you've evidence of such?
Well I'll just put it this way. If the majority of all three branches of your government agree on an issue,then why should anyone be able to stop them????
As far as my comment being stupidity!!!! I agree that I misunderstood your post because how could anyone make such a dumb statement that you can't stop something when all the powers that be agree on it? Now that is a redundant and stupid statement for sure .
I noted in your post (#66) that you introduced the term "ignorance" into the discussion. It seems to me that the word "stupidity" works as a suitable antonym as far as a response is concerned.
Now you introduce the term "dumb." What should be my reply?
That said, if we are a nation "of, by and for the people" my point is that the electorate is at the controls. If the electorate doesn't like seeing it's government ignore the Constitution, what should the electorate do?
That said, if we are a nation "of, by and for the people" my point is that the electorate is at the controls. If the electorate doesn't like seeing it's government ignore the Constitution, what should the electorate do?
Vote against the representation. It is how things were designed to work (and we're not a pure democracy for such reasons).
"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes."
- James Madison
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-09-2011 at 09:16 AM..
Fortunately, and on similar grounds, this country has been spared of theocratic push that existed when it was founded, and today, and it ain't going anywhere. But since you mentioned luck, I'm sure you've evidence of such?
I hope you are right EG, and it "ain't going anywhere".
But I'm not so sure about that...we'll see, after Nov 2012.
And as I said...the more they are "antagonized"...the harder they will retaliate. Their numbers make them undefeatable at the ballot-box, if they get mad/motivated enough and fully organize and act on election day.
As far as "luck" helping the "weak" win over the "mighty".
I'm talking about when a weaker entity has circumstances work out unexpectedly in their favor so that they win over the stronger foe, when they reasonably should have lost. In any contest, about anything.
If the weak can't get the mighty to back them up...or they don't luck-out...it is inevitable that they will lose against a stronger opponent.
That's just REALITY.
I hope you are right EG, and it "ain't going anywhere".
But I'm not so sure about that...we'll see, after Nov 2012.
Are you suggesting that the 2012 elections would be about religiosity over all other issues at hand? And how exactly does it become a religious issue?
Quote:
And as I said...the more they are "antagonized"...the harder they will retaliate.
I’d asked yesterday, if everybody played to the tune of the fundamentalists, would the extreme elements in the society stop being themselves?
Quote:
Their numbers make them undefeatable at the ballot-box, if they get mad/motivated enough and fully organize and act on election day.
Trust me, America has dealt with this problem of mob mentality since its birth. The worst case scenario would be that America will go through its own dark ages as Europe did, but will no doubt emerge again, more sensible and mature. At least for a while.
Quote:
As far as "luck" helping the "weak" win over the "mighty".
I'm talking about when a weaker entity has circumstances work out unexpectedly in their favor so that they win over the stronger foe, when they reasonably should have lost. In any contest, about anything.
If the weak can't get the mighty to back them up...or they don't luck-out...it is inevitable that they will lose against a stronger opponent.
That's just REALITY.
I was looking for an illustration. Luck is ALWAYS important, but when we assume a position that being lucky works on that scale, I’m sure we have some evidence of it to look back on?
I noted in your post (#66) that you introduced the term "ignorance" into the discussion. It seems to me that the word "stupidity" works as a suitable antonym as far as a response is concerned.
Now you introduce the term "dumb." What should be my reply?
That said, if we are a nation "of, by and for the people" my point is that the electorate is at the controls. If the electorate doesn't like seeing it's government ignore the Constitution, what should the electorate do?
The electorate has no other choice but to get politically active and elect someone who will respect the constitution.
The impeachment of some of the Justices who ignore the constitution might be a good place to start!!!
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.
