Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

[aimeeandbeatles]

And how do our right-wing "strict constitutionalists" square this one, I'd like to know:

People decrying a constitutionally valid court, just because in it's normal procedural work it may go against their "moral values".

That is religious and there is supposed to be a seperation of religion and government

 

[Ajidica]

That is religious and there is supposed to be a seperation of religion and government

Many people disagree. They treat the Constitution like they do scripture. They claim to be literalists, but then interpret it however they feel.


Technicaly, nowhere in the Constitution (US at least, I don't know about Canadian) does it say church and state have to be separate. However, the numerous opinions of the founders make it very clear where they stand on the issue.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Technicaly, nowhere in the Constitution (US at least, I don't know about Canadian) does it say church and state have to be separate. However, the numerous opinions of the founders make it very clear where they stand on the issue.

Indeed, it solely says that Congress can't endorse a state religion.

But when looking at concepts such as the wall of separation proposed by several founders, it becomes readily apparent that complete separation is their intent. Hence why I support it going both ways if it's respected or not.

The problem is that separation only applies to politicians and not people, so people will still vote to ensnare us with religiously-oriented crap. That's what the courts are for, though.

 

[Ajidica]

Indeed, it solely says that Congress can't endorse a state religion.

But when looking at concepts such as the wall of separation proposed by several founders, it becomes readily apparent that complete separation is their intent. Hence why I support it going both ways if it's respected or not.

The problem is that separation only applies to politicians and not people, so people will still vote to ensnare us with religiously-oriented crap. That's what the courts are for, though.

I think a compromise could be reached, for the benefit of both parties.
The fundies are allowed to turn us into a theocracy, but churches have to endorse athiesm, evolution, and let gays marry.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Well the first amendment says this on religion:

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

And the Supreme court has expanded on that sentence thusly:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Taking those two together, it is pretty much obvious that while it isn't openly stated in the Constitution "there shall be a seperation between church and state" (or words to that effect), the US Constitution strictly forbids the goverment of the US from showing any favour towards one religon over another, the definition of a seperation between the tow.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

 

[MobBoss]

Technicaly, nowhere in the Constitution (US at least, I don't know about Canadian) does it say church and state have to be separate. However, the numerous opinions of the founders make it very clear where they stand on the issue.

That they did, by opening congress in prayer, and having the 10 commandments prominently displayed in congress.

 

[Ajidica]

I agree completely, but there are those who would assume that the Supreme Court of the Land, the Ariberter of the Supreme Law of the Land, is just a bunch of liberal activist judges who misinterpret the founders wishes.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

That they did, by opening congress in prayer, and having the 10 commandments prominently displayed in congress.

Yup, Jefferson even did an arts and crafts project based on the bible.

 

[Ajidica]

That they did, by opening congress in prayer, and having the 10 commandments prominently displayed in congress.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen

Signed and ratified during the time of our founding fathers. Care to find any evidence they objected to this part?

 

[Supr49er]

Thankfully the legality of something should not be determined by the approval of the few, some, many, or most. In fact, that's in the Supreme Court's past rulings, isn't it?

So, Prop. 8 has been struck down?

Go California! State that constantly ends and renews my faith in progressivism!

We try May Prop H8 die.

I guess it was hard for many people to vote against something called the California Marriage Protection Act if they didn't think for themselves or *gasp* do any further reading.

 

[MobBoss]

Signed and ratified during the time of our founding fathers. Care to find any evidence they objected to this part?

First of all, if you know anything about this document, you know of the huge amount of argument about its validity and what it actually said as there were two treaties written in two different languages, and one didnt quite say what the other did and in fact, the article you refer, Art 11, was absent one version. From the wiki:

Article 11 has been a point of contention in disputes on the doctrine of separation of church and state as it applies to the founding principles of the United States. Opponents claim variously that -- despite full, unanimous ratification by the U.S. Congress in English -- the text which appears as Article 11 in the English translation does not appear in the Arab text of the treaty,

If the two treaties signed were different, one being absent Art 11, how can the treaty be legal and binding?

Secondly, its a moot point anyway as that treaty no longer exists and once broken, have no further bearing or binding upon the nation. And it was broken, by the Pasha of Tripoli less than 5 years after its ratification. A following treaty was negotiated, but the language of Art 11 was not reintroduced and such language has never been on any other treaty the USA has entered into. Which begs the question 'why not'?

Third, this came about 20 years after the founding of our nation, ergo, thus without more study it is unclear how many of the 'founding fathers' were even still around. In fact, only 23 of the 32 sitting senators were even present for its passing. But even Adams himself had previously stated in a letter to Jefferson:

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

 

[Tani Coyote]

We try May Prop H8 die.

I guess it was hard for many people to vote against something called the California Marriage Protection Act if they didn't think for themselves or *gasp* do any further reading.

Most likely, since what do we need to "protect" marriage from? I doubt any people already married will be any more angry with eachother because the gays can marry too.

Besides, half of them divorce anyway. It obviously isn't too sacred.

 

[Ajidica]

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature"

Sounds pretty clear to me.

Give me the line where it says we are a Christian nation. Not the place where it says that our founders had a Christian heritage and principles.

Furthermore, how do you reconcile the opinions of the founding fathers who hoped that by not entwining religion with government America could avoid much of the bloodshed that devestated Europe?

 

[civver_764]

Who cares what the founding fathers think anyways?

 

[Ajidica]

Who cares what the founding fathers think anyways?

Because on this issue they agree with me.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Who cares what the founding fathers think anyways?

We often find people throughout history whose opinions we think still hold true today, in whole or in part. The age of said opinions is irrelevant, as the opinions are considered timeless by those who hold them dear.

For some it's Jefferson, for some it's Jesus, for some it's Lenin, for some it's Trotsky, for some it's Glenn Beck, the list goes on.

 

[MobBoss]

Because on this issue they agree with me.

Highly debatable.

 

[.Shane.]

Who cares what the founding fathers think anyways?

It matters, but the real joke here is that people treat them like some kind of hive mind that only saw things one way... a sort of monolithic entity that people today try to remake to suit their purposes.

 

[.Shane.]

Highly debatable.

It depends which question we are asking. It depends on how we define "Founding Fathers".

 

[MobBoss]

It matters, but the real joke here is that people treat them like some kind of hive mind that only saw things one way... a sort of monolithic entity that people today try to remake to suit their purposes.

You wont hear that from me. I fully recognize that there were indeed divisions, both political and religous, among them.