Anti-Christian attitudes in the U.S.? Would Jesus use this much electricity?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was just having a little fun if it wasn't obvious. I'll stop now

Yes, stop . God does not want you to have fun!

Arrian, the ACLU has a very extreme position on religion. It wants to ban Christianity from the public consistent with its views that the first amendment reads "separation of church and state" instead of what it actually reads.

Putting aside what the Establishment Clause means, can you at least realize that the ACLU acts the same way towards other religions as it does Christianity? Hell, it has defended Christian Churchs, like the case I linked to where the city wanted to shut down a church and the ACLU said, no way, that violates the 1st Amendment.

[Sava]

Imran

people like Ned who can't see past their own ignorance about the ACLU

[Berzerker]

Odin -

the Constitution gives the Federal and State governments the power to tax, and since the Constitution was amended to allow income taxes, you have no argument.

While the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax, it limits that power by defining what Congress can spend money on. You are reading the power to tax and ignoring why Congress was given the power to tax - to perform specific functions laid out in the Constitution. And nowhere in that Constitution will you find a federal power to spend money on whatever Congress wants nor will you find a power to create a welfare state via wealth re-distribution. The ACLU is left wing, the Constitution is a right wing document.

Ned -

The problem, Berz, is that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

And yet several other amendments do apply to the states, including the establishment clause (and that has been defined more broadly than it deserves). The ACLU says the 1st Amendment applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment, but then they say the 2nd Amendment can not only be ignored by the states, the ACLU doesn't challenge federal gun laws.

Kuci, without getting into the Privileges and Immunities clause, I hardly think the Supremes would resort to this clause to protect Second Amendment rights. That Amendment was intended to protect the right of the States to raise militias. I would assume that the corollary is States have the right to ban militias in their own borders if they want. That is effectively what gun control laws do.

There is only one RIGHT in the 2nd Amendment to the BILL OF RIGHTS. And that one RIGHT belongs to the people, not the states. You're confusing the Framers' admonition to the states that they will need well regulated militias to remain free with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Kuci, the problem you have with your interpretation is that it flies in the face of historical facts. Only the most "liberal" of jurists would ignore the purpose for the Second Amendment in interpreting it as giving the people an unfettered right to bear arms against State action.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to give the states a right to have militias, they already had that power under both the Constitution and Articles of Confederation. Read what the Founders said about the importance of having an armed populace and why the 2nd Amendment was ratified. It had very little to do with state militias and was all about you and me being the ultimate arbiters of our security as opposed to letting some government take from us this right.

[Jon Miller]

I am christian and I like the ALCU

a lot better than the Republican partty, about all I like about it is that it 'says' that it will end abortion

Jon Miller

[Ned]

Berz, but you ignore that the purpose for the Second Amendment was to protect the States' Right to have a Militia against a Federal LAW banning the possession of arms by the people.

This Amendment was all about STATES RIGHTS.

It proscribes only Federal POWER.

It has never been extended to restrict States Rights through the 14th Amendment. To do so, would be to turn the Amendment's very purpose of protecting States Rights on its head.

[Ned]

Sava, I am not completely ignorant about the ACLU. I once was a member until I realized that it was on the wrong side on the issue of a Religion and State, effectively turning the Establishment Clause into a weapon against the Freedom of Exercise Clause.

Also, the ACLU is focused solely on Christianity. This focus makes its very motives suspect.

[Berzerker]

Berz, but you ignore that the purpose for the Second Amendment was to protect the States' Right to have a Militia against a Federal LAW banning the possession of arms by the people.

This Amendment was all about STATES RIGHTS.

It proscribes only Federal POWER.

It has never been extended to restrict States Rights through the 14th Amendment. To do so, would be to turn the Amendment's very purpose of protecting States Rights on its head.

Ned, where in the 2nd Amendment have you found the words "state's right" or "right of the states"? In the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights (not Bill of Additional government powers) there is only 1 right mentioned - the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Dis-allowing the states to ban guns does not negate the states' power to have militias. And I'm not ignoring the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, I've explained it's purpose.

[Berzerker]

I once was a member until I realized that it was on the wrong side on the issue of a Religion and State, effectively turning the Establishment Clause into a weapon against the Freedom of Exercise Clause.

Yes, the one requirement of the establishment clause is "Congress shall make no law". If there is no law, there is no establishment of religion.

Also, the ACLU is focused solely on Christianity. This focus makes its very motives suspect.

Trust me, if Buddhists get control of Congress and start passing Buddhist laws, the ACLU will be there to oppose those laws.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, where have I said that Republicans are keepers of the TRUTH? That would require monolistic thinking. The Republicans are a party of the "big tent," where people of opposing views are welcome. Liberal Republicans like Schwarzenegger and me are part of the party as well as the likes of Bush and McCain.

In contrast, anyone who does not believe in the liberal orthodoxy seems to be ostracized in the Democrat Party. Abortion is a key example of what I mean. Name one prominent pro-life Democrat.

Gov. Warner of Virginia, State Senator V. Goode, and a number of others. I imagine that a significant number of southern Democrats are pro-life.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


Actually, if someone did that and called themselves Christian, they might get labeled as a terrorist.

Berzerker, your point is conceded. Apparently I completely misunderstood the logic in your statement. My bad. But you know, according to statistics coming from thousands of different sources there are millions upon millions of Christians in America. If I had to guesstimate how many Christians are in America, I would put it in the 30-40% range compared 50-65% other religion and 5-10% atheist/agnostic/deist/theist.

Actually I think about 75 to 85% of all Americans call themselves Christians, with only 5 to 10% professing adherence to non-christian religions and 5 to 10% claiming to be atheist or agnostic.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Ned, where in the 2nd Amendment have you found the words "state's right" or "right of the states"? In the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights (not Bill of Additional government powers) there is only 1 right mentioned - the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Dis-allowing the states to ban guns does not negate the states' power to have militias. And I'm not ignoring the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, I've explained it's purpose.

Berz, I recommend reading the recent 9th Circuit decision on the Second Amendment. It gives a very good account of why the FF put it in the Bill of Rights and why it was placed there to protect the STATES' RIGHT to form militias. After reading this history, there is no doubt that the proscription was intended, as were all the original Bill of Rights, to restrain only FEDERAL power in this area. There was no intention to restrain STATE power, as the very purpose was to protect STATES RIGHTS.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
My point is that there are certain rights that we've had in the past and are being taken away.

Like the right to own slaves? I really miss that one.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned


Berz, I recommend reading the recent 9th Circuit decision on the Second Amendment. It gives a very good account of why the FF put it in the Bill of Rights and why it was placed there to protect the STATES' RIGHT to form militias. After reading this history, there is no doubt that the proscription was intended, as were all the original Bill of Rights, to restrain only FEDERAL power in this area. There was no intention to restrain STATE power, as the very purpose was to protect STATES RIGHTS.

Why are you so horny over the founding fathers? What makes you think we should care what they may or may not have wanted?

They set up a good framework for a government, but times have changed. We can go beyond what they set forth. Quit treating them like Mohammed. They're just men... very very dead men.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
1) The ACLU is nowhere to be found when states/localities want to ban or severely restrict guns,

The 2nd Amendment has a very powerful and well funded organization defending it. It doesn't need the help of the ACLU, which has it's resources spread thin defending the other nine amendments in the BoR.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

in interpreting it as giving the people an unfettered right to bear arms against State action.

This is complete bull****. Protect us against state action? Like when? You mean like when this government passed the Patriot Act which took away our freedoms? You mean like when GWB stole the 2000 election? You mean like when this administration illegally invaded Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Tell me Ned, where were you and your 2nd amendment toting ilk when we needed you the most?

The point I'm making is that the FFs (since you love them so much) never would have intended citizens to bear arms to protect the country against "state actions" because there will never be consensus over what is just and unjust. Just look at the state of the country today. It would only end in chaos if people took up arms against whatever they thought was the state over stepping its bounds.