Separation of Church and State

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If you want equal access, why don't you argue for equal access instead of no access? And since you argued that manger scenes are coercive, why does equal access pass your test when non-believers will feel coerced (according to you) at the sight of all those religious symbols? You want to deny all access regardless of whether or not some gov't is denying equal access. You've cited the "coercion" one feels at the sight of a manger scene, and vandals/thugs who scare people away from putting up symbols, but you have not cited a law as the culprit.

I understand Imran's argument that extending the ammendment to the states necessarily involves re-interpreting the "make no law" or at least the "Congress shall" part.

I can understand that there are difficulties at arriving at a conclusive, undisputed interpretation.

But at present I can't see whether he is
a) complaining about cases of discrimination against specific minorities
b) claiming that the 1st prohibits religious displays on state property
c) saying that its all ok as long as everyone gets to play the same game
d) complaining about an (as yet unproven) institutional bias brought about by the fact that the majority of the population belongs to one or another christian denomination
e) calling for specific corrective action to target this 'pro-christian' bias

Oh and one more quick question:
How did christian churches get their sacramental wine during the prohibition era?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Odin, you found Social Security and Welfare programs in the Constitution? Where?

Congress has the power to tax and the power the spend. Nowhere in the constitution does it limit what congress can spend the federal budget on. Social Security is a tax, the social safety net is just another appropriation in the federal budget.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So banning the Bible is okay if no one says we should ban it because of those damn Christians? You've just re-written the 1st Amendment again, now its "Congress shall unintentionally make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion".

Brilliant... you just legalized Aztec followers sacrificing their fellow human beings because it is their "free exercise of religion".

You think your insults make this enjoyable? Do you act like this in person?

When the other person acts this stupid (intentionally or not), yes.

So why do you deny arguing that manger scenes are coercive?

I did?

What happens when the only people interested in putting up a religious symbol (a manger scene) are Christians?

As long as it is open to everyone, then fine. If it requires government approval (a permit system), then no, it isn't.

That isn't a religion

Sure it is. Monotheism is a religious belief. What, the establishment clause only applies to specified religions? Do they have to be registered with the state as well?

Madison and Jefferson were the force behind the establishment clause, not Adams. So why is he relevant?

The religion clauses of the 1st Amendment when through 18 drafts. I don't think Madison and Jefferson wrote them all. And interestingly, Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment as a "wall of seperation" between Chuch and State (Letter to Danbury Convention).

But at present I can't see whether he is
a) complaining about cases of discrimination against specific minorities
b) claiming that the 1st prohibits religious displays on state property
c) saying that its all ok as long as everyone gets to play the same game
d) complaining about an (as yet unproven) institutional bias brought about by the fact that the majority of the population belongs to one or another christian denomination
e) calling for specific corrective action to target this 'pro-christian' bias

All of the above . (b) is necessary because I don't know of any town that allows "anything goes" on its property. And I guess (e) would be to put everyone on the same footing by removing, say, Roy Moore's attempt to make everyone know that Alabama was a Christian state.

How did christian churches get their sacramental wine during the prohibition era?

Good question... I'd imagine that since the 18th Amendment came later than the 1st, it controls over whatever came before (usual in statutory law).

[Sandman]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for what is there to interpret, any damn thing we want. I refuse to be beholden to a bunch of dead guys simply because they wrote a document. This is our government. We get to make the rules. It stopped being their government when they died. What they thought only means anything in as much as they could come up with a good argument that is still a good ardgument today.

It's strange the way Americans seem to care so much about the framers' intentions. It's like Germans worrying about what Bismarck would have wanted.

[Berzerker]

How did christian churches get their sacramental wine during the prohibition era?

The amendment allowing for prohibition exempted the use of wine for religious purposes. It wouldn't have passed without Catholic support and was seen as an abridgement of the 1st Amendment. But smaller minority religions dont have the political muscle so they get screwed by people Imran likes.

It's strange the way Americans seem to care so much about the framers' intentions. It's like Germans worrying about what Bismarck would have wanted.

Bismarck got a killer battleship... But our system was created by those framers and those who lord over us claim it as their authority to run our lives, so the authors' intent should matter. Its not so much reverence for them, although some were truly great people, but our duty as a people to watch and safeguard our liberties.

[Berzerker]

Odin

Congress has the power to tax and the power the spend. Nowhere in the constitution does it limit what congress can spend the federal budget on. Social Security is a tax, the social safety net is just another appropriation in the federal budget.

The power to spend is limited...limited to the powers mainly outlined under article 1 section 8.

" With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them." - James Madison

No detailed powers for Social Security or Welfare mentioned, is it just a coincidence it took ~150 years for the Prez and the Congress to discover a power to force us to save for our retirement. If your interpretation is right (and the SCOTUS has never said Congress can spend on whatever it wants) then the enumeration of powers in article 1 section 8 is redundant. Why proclaim a power to establish a postal system when you can spend on anything? To build and maintain a navy is another power...another redundant power according to your interpretation.

Imran

Brilliant... you just legalized Aztec followers sacrificing their fellow human beings because it is their "free exercise of religion".

Freedom is the absence of coercion or force. And dont start arguing about that with silly hypotheticals, we've gone down that road before too many times.. Freedom does not mean I get to murder you, that is not the absence of coercion or force.

When the other person acts this stupid (intentionally or not), yes.

Take off the blinders and look at how many mistakes you've made before that head explodes from the build up of brainfarts .

I did?

Yes Imran, you did. You said you were adopting my argument in order to discredit it. I know what you wrote was confused, but I gleaned that much from it. Doesn't that suggest you were using my argument and not your own?

As long as it is open to everyone, then fine. If it requires government approval (a permit system), then no, it isn't.

You mean a permit system that prevents equal access or any permit system? The latter are common, the former are rare at most.

Sure it is. Monotheism is a religious belief.

But it is not a religion. At least 5 religions share(d) a religious belief in a "sabbath", and that doesn't include all the smaller religions in the biblical world. That doesn't make their shared belief a religion.

What, the establishment clause only applies to specified religions? Do they have to be registered with the state as well?

That was your interpretation, you said a particular religion. It applies to religion, not a particular religion, or a specific religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Why would religions need to register with the state?

The religion clauses of the 1st Amendment when through 18 drafts. I don't think Madison and Jefferson wrote them all. And interestingly, Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment as a "wall of seperation" between Chuch and State (Letter to Danbury Convention).

The religious clauses of the 1st Amendment originated with Madison and Jefferson and their authorship of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty. And why is it interesting? That wall separates religion from the power to make laws, not ban manger scenes from the town square.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Freedom is the absence of coercion or force. And dont start arguing about that with silly hypotheticals, we've gone down that road before too many times.. Freedom does not mean I get to murder you, that is not the absence of coercion or force.

Please... "Free" markets include coercion (get a job or die), you are more free if you can hurt others, so why can't you have freedom if there is coercion? That's ridiculous.

You said you were adopting my argument in order to discredit it.

Uh huh... the argument that coercion is what violates the establishment clause. How you glean that I don't think manger scenes are really coercive from that is completely beyond me.

Unless you are being purposely dense again (if you adopted part of my argument and don't really believe it, then you don't believe anything else you said in that conversation )

You mean a permit system that prevents equal access or any permit system? The latter are common, the former are rare at most.

The former are very common. Such as cases where a permit system denied the KKK from putting up a cross at a city fair or those that prevented 7th Day Adventists from going door to door while other solicitors have. Permits have been used to ban very often throughout history.

But it is not a religion. At least 5 religions share(d) a religious belief in a "sabbath", and that doesn't include all the smaller religions in the biblical world. That doesn't make their shared belief a religion.

Wouldn't endorsing a part of a religion be endorsing that religion as a whole? Sabbath, for instance. If you ban alcohol on Sundays (I still don't know how that's legal) basically because of the Christian sabbath (who's else?), isn't that endorsement of Christianity?

you said a particular religion

I said "Something "respecting an establishment of religion" = endorsing that religion." You know 'that' as in the religion being benefited? Like when you honor the sabbath, you are usually benefiting a specific religion, such as, oh, I dunno, Christianity? And if you are talking about one God, you are benefiting the specific religions of Christianity, Judaism, and (maybe) Islam.

Basically, you can stop misquoting me now with the intention of purposely misinterpreting my argument (I find it hard to believe you didn't understand what I meant). I realize it is hard, but try.

The religious clauses of the 1st Amendment originated with Madison and Jefferson and their authorship of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty.

It goes way beyond that. Roger Williams deserves quite a bit of credit as the orgins of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

And like I said, I don't think Madison and Jefferson wrote all 18 drafts. Plenty of people of other political beliefs who read Williams and other theorists submitted their ideas and the end result was a compromise.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Odin

The power to spend is limited...limited to the powers mainly outlined under article 1 section 8.

" With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them." - James Madison

No detailed powers for Social Security or Welfare mentioned, is it just a coincidence it took ~150 years for the Prez and the Congress to discover a power to force us to save for our retirement. If your interpretation is right (and the SCOTUS has never said Congress can spend on whatever it wants) then the enumeration of powers in article 1 section 8 is redundant. Why proclaim a power to establish a postal system when you can spend on anything? To build and maintain a navy is another power...another redundant power according to your interpretation.

The "Neccessary and Proper" clause was put in for a reason. The instructor of the US government class a took last spring said that SS and welfare are perfectly constitutional. I'd rather take the opinion of a person with a degree in Constitutional Law over yours any day.

[Berzerker]

Odin

The "Neccessary and Proper" clause was put in for a reason.

Yes, to pass laws necessary and proper to carrying out the powers given to the federal gov't. You think its a power all by itself, i.e., Congress can do anything it decides is necessary and proper? No, here is what the necessary and proper clause actually says:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foreging powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The foregoing powers are listed right there before the N & P clause

The instructor of the US government class a took last spring said that SS and welfare are perfectly constitutional. I'd rather take the opinion of a person with a degree in Constitutional Law over yours any day.

Over James Madison too? When a government has decided to ignore the Constitution for several decades, the people who end up as government instructors will likely reflect that ignorance...as will their students...

[Berzerker]

Imran

Please... "Free" markets include coercion (get a job or die), you are more free if you can hurt others, so why can't you have freedom if there is coercion? That's ridiculous.

Freedom is about human interaction, not nature's constraints on life. Why are you more free if you can hurt others? Hurting others is not an act of freedom since freedom requires the absence of force.

Uh huh... the argument that coercion is what violates the establishment clause. How you glean that I don't think manger scenes are really coercive from that is completely beyond me.

A law that coerces, Congress shall make no law... You said the argument that manger scenes should be banned because they are coercive was my argument, or should have been my argument based on the Pledge. You merely adopted my argument on the Pledge to discredit my position on manger scenes, true? Did you not say that? I took that as a denial of ownership of that argument.

Unless you are being purposely dense again (if you adopted part of my argument and don't really believe it, then you don't believe anything else you said in that conversation )

Type in English please

The former are very common. Such as cases where a permit system denied the KKK from putting up a cross at a city fair or those that prevented 7th Day Adventists from going door to door while other solicitors have. Permits have been used to ban very often throughout history.

Oh God, now we have to debate this? How many symbols are on public land? How many cases of actual laws denying equal access? A small minority out of millions? Citing rare cases to argue they are common

Wouldn't endorsing a part of a religion be endorsing that religion as a whole? Sabbath, for instance. If you ban alcohol on Sundays (I still don't know how that's legal) basically because of the Christian sabbath (who's else?), isn't that endorsement of Christianity?

Its a coercive endorsement, laws are involved.

I said "Something "respecting an establishment of religion" = endorsing that religion." You know 'that' as in the religion being benefited? Like when you honor the sabbath, you are usually benefiting a specific religion, such as, oh, I dunno, Christianity? And if you are talking about one God, you are benefiting the specific religions of Christianity, Judaism, and (maybe) Islam.

This is what you said:

the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from endorsing a particular religion.

I corrected you, it doesn't say that. You then said its the same thing and I explained why it isn't the same thing. You lose track of your arguments and then accuse me of misquoting you? Yeah, this is real fun.

Basically, you can stop misquoting me now with the intention of purposely misinterpreting my argument (I find it hard to believe you didn't understand what I meant). I realize it is hard, but try.

You're debating the meaning of the 1st Amendment and you dont even know what it says.

It goes way beyond that. Roger Williams deserves quite a bit of credit as the orgins of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

And like I said, I don't think Madison and Jefferson wrote all 18 drafts. Plenty of people of other political beliefs who read Williams and other theorists submitted their ideas and the end result was a compromise.

I dont care who originally thought up the notion of religious liberty.
The version of it we find in the 1st Amendment came from Madison and Jefferson.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No detailed powers for Social Security or Welfare mentioned, is it just a coincidence it took ~150 years for the Prez and the Congress to discover a power to force us to save for our retirement. If your interpretation is right (and the SCOTUS has never said Congress can spend on whatever it wants) then the enumeration of powers in article 1 section 8 is redundant. Why proclaim a power to establish a postal system when you can spend on anything? To build and maintain a navy is another power...another redundant power according to your interpretation.

It appears that certain concepts might not have been known to the Founding Fathers.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It appears that certain concepts might not have been known to the Founding Fathers.

They couldn't even come close to conceiving some of the difficulties we face. I wonder how they would have handled issues like nuclear proliferation and abortion.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It appears that certain concepts might not have been known to the Founding Fathers.

...........like fluoridating water?

[Zkribbler]

...at least they could grant Letters of Marque. Arrrrgg, matey!

[Berzerker]

It appears that certain concepts might not have been known to the Founding Fathers.

You think charity was unknown to them? Taking care of the elderly was also unknown? Pension plans, saving for retirement? All unknown? And your comment ignores that they did not create a Constitution allowing every concept that was known to them, like authoritarianism. No, they created a Constitution giving a federal government very limited, very specific powers leaving most of the power with the people in their states. Do you think those powers enumerated in the Constitution reflect all the concepts they knew about?