Screw it, I give up

[wesfau2]

Are we going to debate the "the's" now?


Only the scholars see this as you do.

The rest of us see the constitution for what is is, not what each word means in Latin.

So you're a constitutional literalist?

[Kaos]

That was a pile of bullshoot unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.

And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that.  You're just being obtuse.

Federal law doesn't trump laws that are "reserved to the states" 

There is no explicit "separation of church and state" anywhere in the constitution. That is an interpretative statement and one I don't necessarily agree is supported to the extent it has been thus far enforced.

Here's the thing, though. I'm not calling you an idiot, uneducated or any of the other slurs as the mud-hurling hystericals have done in this and other threads. I disagree with your position and the basis under which you've reached it. But that's all. 

[wesfau2]

I disagree with your position and the basis under which you've reached it. But that's all.

That's fine.  Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company.  It also makes you wrong.

[Kaos]

That's fine.  Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company.  It also makes you wrong.

Actually? It doesn't. And therein lies the problem.

[CCTAU]

That's fine.  Your lay opinion is noted and puts you in some dubious company.  It also makes you wrong.

Yes Kaos, you poor layman. Let the scholars take care of the smart stuff for you. They know what's best for us....


Where have we heard that before?

[wesfau2]

Yes Kaos, you poor layman. Let the scholars take care of the smart stuff for you. They know what's best for us....


Where have we heard that before?

I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.

[CCTAU]

I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.

not everything is that extreme. There are many people in this world who know how to treat the flu and know that hot is on the left, cold is on the right, and shit don't flow uphill.

The constitution was not written for scholars, it was written for the LAY PEOPLE!

[Kaos]

I wouldn't take medical advice from a plumber, plumbing advice from a doctor or legal analysis from someone who isn't qualified to render same.

Not giving legal advice.  But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so.  But that's another story.

I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.

I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.

Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.

[wesfau2]

Not giving legal advice.  But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so.  But that's another story.

I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.

I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.

Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.

All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.

[CCTAU]

Not giving legal advice.  But I could. And do it just as well as many "qualified" to do so.  But that's another story.

I'm a little surprised to see the contempt displayed for real world, real life experience displayed here. There are many things I understand at 40+much that I couldn't possibly have grasped at 20 or even 30. The difference, though, is that even as sure of myself as I was at 20 or 30 I wasn't such an arrogant douche that I dismissed out of hand the knowledge and insight people of the older generation had.

I remember making passionate -- and in retrospect completely uninformed -- arguments about certain issues but I also recognized the wisdom of people who had a broader perspective. Even now I'm still willing to learn and do so whenever a reasonable and well formed argument that challenges what I know and believe is presented (regardless of who presents it). Always looking for answers.

Some of you seem belligerently close minded. And that's a shame. You may never learn.

Is that not the difference between an education and an indoctrination?

[Saniflush]

All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.

How does your experience with coke whores play into this?

[wesfau2]

How does your experience with coke whores play into this?

That's some real world experience that you can bank!

[Kaos]

All due respect, but my training in this particular subject trumps your "real life experience", whatever that might mean in respect to constitutional analysis.

All due respect but I know an ass ton of lawyers. They can't read any better than I can. You don't have to be "trained" to understand the constitution. It's written in pretty plain English for anyone to read for themselves.

All due respect again your "training" doesn't give you any greater skill at deriving meaning from a paragraph than me or anyone else who knows how to use words effectively.

I will admit that I can't cite from the top of my head which (too often idiotic) ruling twisted a certain word to have a meaning for which it may of may not have been originally intended. I may not know which specific case applies to a certain set of circumstances but I can look it up.

Your "training" is in how to apply the interpretations others have made. No disrespect intended because it was the career I originally wanted before life and some passionately made bad decisions took me down another path. But I definitely don't need "legal training" to read the Constitution, study history and infer meaning.

[AWK]

Some of you guys contribute to the mockery of this State...

[AUChizad]

Through this maze of bullshit Kaos has crafted, he has successfully been able to saturate the point he was trying to make earlier out of the conversation. You know, before he insulted the profession of half this board, while simultaneously claiming he "knows the profession" better than those who've studied it since their early 20s.

That point was that the poor, white, Christian majority ain't got the same rights no more as ever'one else.

I can't even put myself into the brain of someone who that grossly lacks logic. It would make sense only if quotes from the Q'uaran, Torah, and the works of Buddha were up there, but the Ten Commandments weren't allowed. But of course, again, you know that.

No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:




Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.

And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fucking court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.

[WiregrassTiger]

That was a pile of bullshoot unrelated to the actual, factual, non-imaginary, non-interpretative distinction between state action and individual action.

And federal law trumps state law...but you already knew that.  You're just being obtuse.

Does federal law trump state law because the feds say so or because the constitution says so? And I think Kaos is spot on about the intent. I don't think that a legal scholar can be much more accurate judging intent than a ditch digger regarding the so called "separation of church and state", which never appears anywhere in the constitution as "separation of church and state". I think he's right about the intent being to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion.

Why? Mainly, because that's the way it reads. Also, because I find it hard to believe that scripture would hang in the very room in which the decision was made if there is supposed to be "separation of church and state."

Just because I believe that kids should be able to pray out loud at school or before a ballgame does not mean that I think that they should indoctrinate kids with Christianity. "Is merely letting them pray indoctrination?"   I don't think so. "What if they pray to Allah?" Yep, if that floats their boat.

Is this particular issue futile and a waste of money? Most certainly. No one is willing to die. People have to be willing to die in order for something of this magnitude to shift. I don't personally know anyone willing to go that far.

To me, it's simply a state's rights issue as long as no one is being oppressed. My interpretation of oppression is obviously a lot different from yours.

[CCTAU]

No one is saying you can't decorate your house like this loon in Prattville I grew up down the road from if you want:

Did you ever even sit down and talk to Mr. Rice? He was not a loon, he just had a conviction that you did not understand. But yet, in your esteemed educational mind, he HAD to be a loon.

Doing that, or any other religious iconography is very clearly endorsing one religion over another. It's also clear from those idiotic statements from the legislature that that is exactly the goal.

And saying that interpreting the First Amendment as a "Separation of Church and State" is some literalist over analysis of what the word "is" is, leaving the actual intention by the wayside?? Again, the unintentional irony is astounding. Do you think Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow came up with the phrase? Or was it, you know, the people who wrote the Constitution?

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
You have to be functionally retarded to interpret that ANY WAY that would allow a government property, let alone a fucking court house, to show favoritism to ANY religion over ANY other by prominently displaying its iconography.

And yet is was not ADDED to the constitution. You ever stop to wonder why?

I'm not sure how a letter from Jefferson becomes constitutional law!

[Tiger Wench]

The government, and by extension the courts, are supposed to be fair, impartial and treat every one equally. 

If I am an Athiest or a Buddhist or a Muslim and am before a court where a Christian text hangs on the wall, especially when that text consists of a set of rules that, according to Christians, "everyone" is supposed to follow, how much confidence will I have that the person in the black robe sitting in judgment on me and my actions will not apply these religious rules to me, even though I do not subscribe to them and do not follow them all as written?  That I will get a fair and impartial hearing on the merits of my case?  And at the end of the day, one of the greatest principles on which this country was founded is "innocent until proven guilty", and to me, justice should prevail over all.  If I feel that I will not get justice because I do not place a Christian God over all other gods, then that is much more egregious violation of rights than some Baptist screaming his rights were violated because the 10 Commandments AREN'T posted in a courtroom. 

To the extent the 10 Commandments are incorporated into secular law - and many are (murder and theft being just two) - then fine.  But not all 10 are incorporated into secular law, and I do not want to be judged by anything other than secular law if I am before a court, my own Christian beliefs aside.

Posting the 10 Commandments makes us like Saudi Arabia and other oppressive countries, where Sharia law and the law of the land are one and the same, and everyone is judged under rules that result in the nearly automatic conviction of non-Christians, and the application of barbaric punishments.  Yeah, I want to be like that.

[Vandy Vol]

First Amendment doesn't "expressly mention the separation of church and state."

It does not mention the exact words "separation of church and state," but it's about as expressly mentioned as you can get without bickering over exact phrasing.  If the government can make no law that's "respecting" a religion, then how is there not a separation of church and state?  The common meaning of "respecting" is "with reference or regard to."  You know...use the basic definition of words, instead of "deconstruct[ing] every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word 'is' is."  If the government can't even make a law referencing or in regard to a religion, then how could there be any juncture of church and state?

The Constitution also doesn't mention the "right to privacy" in a general sense, and in fact only expressly mentions a right to privacy in specific circumstances (right to privacy in your beliefs, to not house soldiers, to no undergo unwarranted search and seizure, and to not self-incriminate), but it exists in a more general manner than just those circumstances.

While I realize that's how the SC has typically twisted the phrase regarding the "establishment of religion" I disagree with that interpretation. The SC isn't infallible. Study history. That phrase was meant to prevent the government from creating a "Church of the US" and forcing everyone to be subject to the rules of that church as had happened when the "Church of England" had been created and used to impose the personal will of Henry VIII (who only wanted a divorce).

While you may want to attribute a specific definition to the clause based on your own reasonings, it can't exactly be said that the phrase was meant only to prevent the U.S. from establishing an official church.  This can be seen in many different ways.

First, the intent of the founding fathers.  James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law.  Not solely the creation of an official church, but mere endorsement of a religion.  This reflects the wording of the First Amendment, which references "respecting" an establishment of religion.  Thomas Jefferson is the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  The current wording of the first amendment is due to Charles Pinckney, who urged that the U.S. should pass no law on the subject of religion.  Not just a law establishing a church, but any law relating to religion, which again is reflected in the wording "no law respecting an establishment of religion."  George Mason argued that no religion should be "favored or established by law;" there wasn't merely a ban on the establishment of a religion, but also favoring a religion.  Again, very similar to the pretty plain wording "respecting an establishment of religion."  The list goes on and on, but the point is that it's pretty hard to argue that you know what the first amendment "really means" when so many of the founders who wrote the amendment directly disagree with you.

Second, other portions of the Constitution.  Article VI, for example, states that Senators and Representatives should not have to pass a religious test in order to be eligible for office.  Establishing a test is not the same as establishing a church, yet it's specifically prohibited in the Constitution.  If the Constitution was only meant to prohibit religion being involved with the government to such an extent that only the creation of a U.S. church was banned, then why include this article?  Why use a generalized phrase in the first amendment that broadly states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion?  Why not specifically ban the creation of a U.S. church and leave it at that?  Because there was an intent to create a pretty strict separation between church and state so that the government would not be viewed as favoring one religion, and thus favoring those who practice that religion, while alienating citizens who have different religious beliefs.

[WiregrassTiger]

It does not mention the exact words "separation of church and state," but it's about as expressly mentioned as you can get without bickering over exact phrasing.  If the government can make no law that's "respecting" a religion, then how is there not a separation of church and state?  The common meaning of "respecting" is "with reference or regard to."  You know...use the basic definition of words, instead of "deconstruct[ing] every syllable of every word, to parse every phrase and determine what their interpretation of the word 'is' is."  If the government can't even make a law referencing or in regard to a religion, then how could there be any juncture of church and state?

The Constitution also doesn't mention the "right to privacy" in a general sense, and in fact only expressly mentions a right to privacy in specific circumstances (right to privacy in your beliefs, to not house soldiers, to no undergo unwarranted search and seizure, and to not self-incriminate), but it exists in a more general manner than just those circumstances.


While you may want to attribute a specific definition to the clause based on your own reasonings, it can't exactly be said that the phrase was meant only to prevent the U.S. from establishing an official church.  This can be seen in many different ways.

First, the intent of the founding fathers.  James Madison, the father of both the Constitution and the First Amendment, consistently warned against any attempt to blend endorsement of Christianity into the law.  Not solely the creation of an official church, but mere endorsement of a religion.  This reflects the wording of the First Amendment, which references "respecting" an establishment of religion.  Thomas Jefferson is the source of the phrase "separation of church and state" from a letter he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.  The current wording of the first amendment is due to Charles Pinckney, who urged that the U.S. should pass no law on the subject of religion.  Not just a law establishing a church, but any law relating to religion, which again is reflected in the wording "no law respecting an establishment of religion."  George Mason argued that no religion should be "favored or established by law;" there wasn't merely a ban on the establishment of a religion, but also favoring a religion.  Again, very similar to the pretty plain wording "respecting an establishment of religion."  The list goes on and on, but the point is that it's pretty hard to argue that you know what the first amendment "really means" when so many of the founders who wrote the amendment directly disagree with you.

Second, other portions of the Constitution.  Article VI, for example, states that Senators and Representatives should not have to pass a religious test in order to be eligible for office.  Establishing a test is not the same as establishing a church, yet it's specifically prohibited in the Constitution.  If the Constitution was only meant to prohibit religion being involved with the government to such an extent that only the creation of a U.S. church was banned, then why include this article?  Why use a generalized phrase in the first amendment that broadly states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion?  Why not specifically ban the creation of a U.S. church and leave it at that?  Because there was an intent to create a pretty strict separation between church and state so that the government would not be viewed as favoring one religion, and thus favoring those who practice that religion, while alienating citizens who have different religious beliefs.

TL;DR. All I heard was yadda yadda bubbbbbbbbblllllleee bub burp yadda yep doodle dee doo yadda yoo intent bobbity bop Hooooodie Hooooo! What do you think you are a fudgeing lawyer or something?