[aldo_14]

what would you define as common sense, then?

[Kazan]

sentancing phase... you don't know your courts

"the sentancing phase" of judicial review is "we found this law unconstitutional therefore it is void" or "we found this law in accordance with the constitution and therefore we uphold it"

you are practicing doublespeak now.

the court has not "Stepped outside their bounds" -- they are protecting both mik and myself, and you and deepspace9er -- they are preventing you from injecting your religion into the government and oppressing others with it, and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it (And yes, there are athiests out there who would do this).

They are saying

A) Religion may not be legislated, be the sole source of legislation, et cetera
B) The government may not prevent you from practicing religion

it is indded a "Wall of speration between church and state" as jefferson put it and black reaffirmed it.  So that to two do not interfere with each other because the results thereof are NEVER positive.

[Stryke 9]

The thing about "common sense" is that when applied in politics it's basically a synonym for "agrees with me". Nothing more. Perhaps you'd care to find something less tautological to accuse them of.

The meaning of the establishment clause may be perfectly clear to you, but it's at least as clear to me. The two of us are in disagreement about something we both can agree is blindingly simple and obvious. The same applies to most of the rest of the country in varying quantities. The Supreme Court, recognizing that the interpretation is clearly not so simple as it is made out to be, has decided to err on the side of caution. As well they should.

[Liberator]

they are preventing you from injecting your religion into the government and oppressing others with it, and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it

No, The Constitution does that without their "help".

[HotSnoJ]

Gha! I give up.


*leaves*

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator


No, The Constitution does that without their "help".

you don't seem to understand what you're talking about

judicial review comes _AFTER_ a law is passed.

So if both houses of congress passed a law saying "Jesus is the god and savior of the united states and no other religion shall be practiced" and the president signed it (Which for such a blatant violation of the constitution should be an impeachable offense) then that law has to be challenged and go in front of the court for judicial review - it is their JOB to "help" it as you say, to ENFORCE the constitution

[Stryke 9]

What is this argument even about, anyway? What specific liberties are being deprived everyone by the Supreme Court in their unwillingness to break down the establishment clause? Maybe I missed something here, but the dialogue's gotten terribly abstract, and it might possibly help to clarify what exactly this is all over. Or is it just the generalized feeling that God's not on our side anymore?

[Kazan]

stryke 9: interesting

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Liberator

The Founders were among the most intelligent men of their time, I trust them to write exactly what they meant.

You're absolutely correct:

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

I think Thomas Jefferson said exactly what he meant. Thank you for back me, and Mr. Jefferson up.

I would also like to point out that the article you posted very specifically tried to reinterpret Jefferson's words to the Danbury Baptist Association. In fact, the article specifically did its best to not let Jefferson speak for himself. Instead the article offered its reinterpretation, without even providing the quote. I provided the quote above. I'll provide it again.:

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Jefferson is quite clear in what he says here. He's also quite clear in what he says here:

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

Now, will you please stop ignoring the facts you find inconvenient, and stop trying to use the Thomas Jefferson to back up your morally repugnant stance? It is antithetical to what the man stood for, believed in, espoused, wrote and stated in his public and private life.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Kazan
and they are preventing us from injecting out loathing of religion into government and opressing others with it (And yes, there are athiests out there who would do this).

Damn, I've been discovered!!

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
What is this argument even about, anyway?

Liberator decided to change the direction of the topic (I presume, but do not know for certain, that this because he couldn't defend Bush in the face fo the facts) to the question of the seperation of Church and State.

His position (or rather that of the article he linked, but has failed to defend), is that the seperation is intended to be one way. IE: The church is to be protected from the state, but the state has no such protections from the church. Thus, the liberties being deprived pretty much fall into the category of "freedom to make everyone else subject to laws inspired by a faith they may or may not hold".

I hope that sums it up clearly.

[Stryke 9]

I see. And trying to use the words of a famously outspoken Deist to claim that the Protestant religious right should be running the country, too.

Hm.


Yeah, you deal with this one, I don't wanna touch it.

[Solatar]

*puts in two cents, for what it's worth*

If I recall correctly, Thomas Jefferson was in France for diplomatic reasons during the Constitutional Convention, so he had no hand in writing it (he may have written letters or something, but I don't know). James Madison was the main figure if I'm still recalling correctly, so I'm not sure exactly what Thomas Jefferson has to do with the seperation of church and state in the consititution if he wasn't there...

I'm not sure exactly what this arguement is about..or why it's occuring..so don't flame me...

[Kazan]

Solatar: you remember completely and utterly incorrect to the point that it is utterly sad

JEFFERSON WROTE THE BLOODY THING

[aldo_14]

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/ff.shtml

What is meant by the term "founding father"? Does it apply to any person or group in American history who had some type of influence on the writing of the Constitution? What about those individuals like George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry who helped tremendously in the writing of the Constitution, but then refused to sign it because of philosophical differences? There were seventy individuals chosen to go to Philadelphia to attend the Constitutional Convention, fifty-five who attended most of the meetings, and thirty-nine who actually signed the Constitution. Of the thirty-nine who actually signed the finished document, only fifteen to twenty actually played an instrumental role in either the founding philosophy or fight for ratification!

The Constitution came about as a consequence of several documents and by the work of several men either directly or indirectly. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are considered to be the "founding fathers" of our country.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are considered to be two of our founding fathers even though they were not at the Constitutional Convention. They were serving the country in diplomatic positions at the time. Jefferson kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia while ambassador to France by carrying on correspondence with James Madison, and John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the United States of America." He became the new country's first Vice President. Other founding fathers include Thomas Paine who was in England at the time of the meeting in Philadelphia, but the impact of "Common Sense" on the philosophy behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence is immeasurable. Patrick Henry was opposed to the idea of changing the Articles of Confederation, but once the agreement was made to add a bill of rights to the Constitution he fought hard for ratification in Virginia.

The term "framers" could be used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution, and "founding fathers" could be used in a broader sense to characterize those individuals who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood. However, the notion of a "framer" or a "founding father" is not something to be narrowly defined in a technical or legal sense but may be a large mythic and philosophical notion. It sustains our vision of ourselves, inspiring our ongoing inquiries into our national self-identity. The following section of the book is a list of those individuals who had an impact on the Constitution either directly or indirectly. The list is by no means complete, but is an attempt to identify people who played a large role in the development of the Constitution at this crucial time in American history.

Might help clarify things.

[Kazan]

oh.. i was thinking Dec of Independance wasn't I... mesa stupid

[Ace]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Well then what set of ideal are we going to use as the basis for our laws?

Where do ppl get the idea that marriage is totally a Biblical thing? Is it because it's in the bible that you are against an admendment defining marriage? If so the bible also talks about murder, stealing, and other criminal activity. Should we declare the laws concerning them unconstitutional?

First off I doubt a muslim would be elected to to the presidency anytime soon. And yes I would if he was. And yes, I am supporting him and it because of my beliefs.

No, there is no difference! By stating opinions you are declaring what you believe to be truth.

HotSnoj, please read about enlightenment figures. Concepts such as the social contract and enlightened self-interest are some of the primary influences on the founding fathers of the US.

On the subject of theocracy, your opinion HotSnoj is that the majority may dictate their religious beliefs on the rest of a multicultural society? This is making the assumption that George W. Bush is acting in the interest of the majority and has their support.

Also, I repeat: I am stating my opinions. I do not claim that they are the one and only truth or approach to the world.

[Kazan]

you know i just noticed liberator's signature starts with

Die Stimmen erklären mir, daß ich nicht verrückt bin.

The voices explain to me, that I am not insane

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Kazan


Yes the first ammendment - "Congrees shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - this is known as the seperation between church and state.  Yes bush has viiolated it in essence and in fact

Bull****. Cite your source.[/b]

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Bush has nothing to do with these radical organizations. Even many fundies aren't trying to wipe out Islam as a religion. Besides, what kind of idiot would use Mother Jones as your main source of political information? They're about as far left as the Ku Klux Klan is far right (before you start talking about Mother Jones not burning crosses in people's yards in stuff, remember that most Klan chapters are all talk and no action nowadays as well).

Two things : I'm french, and i used french newspaper to came upon this source, so I wouldn't know the political orientation of this newspaper. But what's wrong with using paper from the left ? People from Bush side would be way less likely to criticize him after all. by the way, for the french-reading people, this is the source I used for saying that Bush was a Born Again.

Also, religious war is not fundamentalism. The Catholics launched Crusades against Islam in the Middle Ages, but with their bloated bureaucracy and piles of organized doctrines and rituals, they were the antithesis of fundamentalist Christians. Read a ****ing dictionary.

You're right on this one. I tend to confuse fanatism and fundamentalism when seaking of religion. But they're so similar nowadays.... I think I can be excused, no ?