What is a liberal?

[jb_1430]

I suppose anything is possible my friend... but I still have to call 'em like I see 'em.

You dont see very well and instead constantly mis state and mis characterize what I say, and then try to attribute the mis statements and mis characterizations to me. MARK

 

[top gun]

You dont see very well and instead constantly mis state and mis characterize what I say, and then try to attribute the mis statements and mis characterizations to me. MARK

I don't mind that you insult me. I'll still do the best I can to interpret your positions. I think the problem may really be that you get boxed in by your statements. Regardless I respect the fact that you are giving us your opinions.

 

[jb_1430]

I don't mind that you insult me. I'll still do the best I can to interpret your positions. I think the problem may really be that you get boxed in by your statements. Regardless I respect the fact that you are giving us your opinions.

I havent been boxed in by any of my statements and my position has remained the same. It is your mischaracterization of my statements that have been changing. MARK

 

[top gun]

I havent been boxed in by any of my statements and my position has remained the same. It is your mischaracterization of my statements that have been changing. MARK

Ok... then I'll try to ask you direct questions and see what the answers really are.

Do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution intentionally established a separation between church and state to prohibit undo influence from the church and religion on the new government?

Do you agree that by endorsing any particular religious creed even if that creed is Christianity that in itself automatically violates said separation by creating an environment where other religions or no religion becomes 2nd rate in the eyes of the government creating a discriminatory practice?

 

[jb_1430]

Ok... then I'll try to ask you direct questions and see what the answers really are.

Do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution intentionally established a separation between church and state

As THEY would have understood the term, not the current supreme court, and only in regards to the Federal Government, not the states. Some of the States HAD established religions.


MARK

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Ok... then I'll try to ask you direct questions and see what the answers really are.

Do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution intentionally established a separation between church and state to prohibit undo influence from the church and religion on the new government?

Do you agree that by endorsing any particular religious creed even if that creed is Christianity that in itself automatically violates said separation by creating an environment where other religions or no religion becomes 2nd rate in the eyes of the government creating a discriminatory practice?

The Framers wanted the presence of religion in general ("The Creator"), but they didn't want any one religion to influence politics.

 

[palerider]

Do you believe that the Framers of our Constitution intentionally established a separation between church and state to prohibit undo influence from the church and religion on the new government?

The framers never intended to separate church from state, nor did they intend to prevent individual states from having state churches. If you understood establishment clause and were able to put it into the context of the time it was written, you would not suggest that it was the founder's intent to separate religion from anything. Their sole intent was to not have a national church like the church of england.

I have already gone through this explanation on another thread so rather than retype the whole thing, I will bring that explanation here if you don't mind.

The framers were exceedingly precise in stating what they did and did not want the government to be. If they had wanted a separation of church and state, it would be written in the constitution. It isn't there. It is clear that you have never really taken any time to examine the establishment clause of the constitution. If you had, you would not make the suggestion that there is, or ever was a separation of church and state.

I think that in order to grasp what the founders were saying when they wrote the establishment clause, you have to examine the stages it went through before it was finally accepted. If I may start at the beginning.

James Madison penned the first draft of the first amendment in 1789 and it read as follows¦

”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed. “

A subcommittee in the house promptly struck the word national from the original draft. After that, several revisions were debated on but none contained the word national. After lengthy debate, the house approved this wording¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."

The senate took up debate on September 3 and the debates were conducted in secrecy so there is no record of their entire contents, but the Senate Journal does list 3 motions and votes. The record states that the motions were voted on and defeated and all three motions restricted the ban in the draft amendment to establishments preferring one sect above another. The first motion would have made the establishment clause read as follows¦

"Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others."

This motion failed and then a motion was made to kill the amendment which also failed then another motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.”

This motion failed as well. A further motion was made to word the amendment as follows¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.”

This motion also failed and as a result, the senate adopted the language that the house had suggested¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing religion.”

Six days later, the Senate took up the clause again. This time they changed the House amendment to read¦

”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”

When the rewording was returned to the House, it was rejected and they suggested a joint conference. The Senate refused to back down on its wording, but did agree to the conference. The committee consisted of Madison as chairman of the House conferees, joined by Sherman and Vining, and Ellsworth as chairman of the Senate conferees, joined by Paterson and Carroll. Four of the six had been members of the Constitutional Convention.

The members of the House delegation simply refused to accept the Senate’s wording of the amendment. They said that they would not be satisfied with a simple ban on the preference of one sect or religion over all others. After much debate, the delegation from the Senate gave in and the amendment was drafted to read as we know it today¦

”Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Ok, so much for the history lesson. In considering the wording of this amendment in relation to the wording of the rest of the amendments a glaring inconsistency is evident. Look at all of the rights offered for incorporation in the Bill of Rights. Now ask a couple of questions with regard to those rights¦

1. What is the right in question?
2. Who does the right apply to?

When you apply these questions to the rest of the rights, the answers are obvious. Take, for example, freedom of speech. The answers are , the right to speak freely without fear of reprisal from the government and the right applies to everyone. But the establishment clause presents a problem when you try to apply the same questions why do you suppose that is?

The clause doesn’t seem to be so much right, with regard to individuals as it is a prohibition. There simply is nothing personal about this right...so why include it in the bill of rights unless it indeed is a right?

This clause is either the same, or different from the free exercise of religion. If it is the same then how does it enhance an individual’s religious freedom? If it is different, however, then what is it, because it isn’t a right to religious liberty.

Since it is in the bill of rights it must be a right, but obviously not an individual right by any stretch of the imagination, then whose right is it?

The answer that seems most obvious is that it is protecting the rights of the states. It is well documented that the states had religious establishments that were in effect for decades after the Bill of Rights was adopted and they were ended not by any federal mandate, but because of choices made by the individual states.

If one reads the establishment clause in the historical context of new law in a new country it seems quite clear that the establishment clause was worded to protect the religious establishments of the individual states from any interference by the federal government. What other religious establishments existed in this country in 1791?

In this light, it seems that the founders quite possibly were attempting to protect both the individual's right to religious freedom, and the state's rights to have their establishments of religion without the burden of federal interference. What they obviously did not have any mind to do was establish any sort of separation between the church and the state.

 

[top gun]

palerider... just Google it (America not founded on religion)... there are pages & pages.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

 

[jb_1430]

palerider... just Google it (America not founded on religion)... there are pages & pages.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

Dont you have anything to address his points? Or you having one of those pretend debates with yourself? MARK

 

[palerider]

palerider... just Google it (America not founded on religion)... there are pages & pages.

That is the silliest argument that I have ever seen. Hell, google "america is a christian nation" and you will get plenty of hits. Pages and pages of them. The points that I have made are sound and if you feel that you can rebutt them, by all means, feel free.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."

I didn't say that it was. But it was not founded with the idea of separating government from religion either. If our founders views were to separate religion from government, that is what they would have said. That, however, is not what the establishment clause says.

Feel free to take on my arguemt with regard to the establishment clause. I have researched the subject and have run my ideas past several lawyers that I know one of which, is a constitutional lawyer and have had no objections to anything that I have put forward.

 

[palerider]

Dont you have anything to address his points? Or you having one of those pretend debates with yourself? MARK

Very few who believe that there is some separation between government and religion will address the points that I make. They are pretty much indisputable and clearly point out that there is no separation between church and state.

 

[vyo476]

I'm curious, palerider. Where did all that stuff about how the First Amendment came into being come from? If there is additional material from the source I would be quite interested in reading it.

 

[palerider]

I'm curious, palerider. Where did all that stuff about how the First Amendment came into being come from? If there is additional material from the source I would be quite interested in reading it.

Just time spent in the library. There are minutes from most of the early meetings of the congress and senate at most county center libraries. Most folks who like to argue what the founders intended try and argue from a modern context and it simply can't be done. When you read the evoloution of the first amendment in the context of the time, it becomes impossible to argue that the founders intended to separate the church from the state. The clause went through lots of drafts but none of them, including the one that finally passed can be reasonably construed to suggest a separation of church and state.

And what was written in a letter to a baptist preacher is completely irrelavent to what was actually voted on and passed in the congress and senate.

 

[jb_1430]

palerider... just Google it (America not founded on religion)... there are pages & pages.

That is the silliest argument that I have ever seen. Hell, google "america is a christian nation" and you will get plenty of hits. Pages and pages of them. The points that I have made are sound and if you feel that you can rebutt them, by all means, feel free.

Especially since "America not founded on religion" comes up with ZERO search results and "america is a christian nation" comes up with 28,500 search results.
Like shooting fish in a barrel. Big fat slow moving catfish in a barrel.
MARK

 

[ArmChair General]

That is the silliest argument that I have ever seen. Hell, google "america is a christian nation" and you will get plenty of hits. Pages and pages of them. The points that I have made are sound and if you feel that you can rebutt them, by all means, feel free.



I didn't say that it was. But it was not founded with the idea of separating government from religion either. If our founders views were to separate religion from government, that is what they would have said. That, however, is not what the establishment clause says.

Feel free to take on my arguemt with regard to the establishment clause. I have researched the subject and have run my ideas past several lawyers that I know one of which, is a constitutional lawyer and have had no objections to anything that I have put forward.

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.