Screw it, I give up

[GH2001]

From this conversation, Kaos and CCTAU would be perfectly fine with hanging quotes and verses from the Quran in Alabama Schools and Courthouses.

And this very point is exactly why I am against religious displays of any kind on govt property. As long as it's consistent and NO religious subj matter is displayed I'm cool.

Make fun of the Ten Commandments, get them removed but then allow Quran quotes to be displayed? Then surely you could see that would be hypocritical and how people would take issue. But until then.....I have no issue.

[Vandy Vol]

Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one.  Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.

It's the elected legislators' (not all of whom are lawyers) collective job to write legislation.  Wes's point was that he's not going to get medical advice from a lawyer, as it's not the lawyer's job to diagnose a health condition and prescribe a treatment.  The ACA doesn't dictate what medical treatments citizens should undergo when they are diagnosed will illnesses, and Dodd Frank doesn't dictate what investments financial institutions should choose.  Bad laws?  That's a different debate, but in relation to Wes's point, it's not relevant.

[AUChizad]

Would have been nice to know this when a bunch of lawyers wrote the ACA and Dodd Frank. Both failures. And don't even try to argue the second one.  Hint hint - I'm in the financial industry.

For the record and back to the lecture at hand - I'm with Wench here. It's not a secret we aren't atheists or liberals. But I don't really favor displaying ANY religious material on govt property in a public manner either. As long as it's consistent it doesn't bother me. Fair enough right? I try to stick to my libertarian guns as much as possible and wouldn't be able to call myself such if I didn't have this stance.

I'm a Christian (although I have come to despise organized religion) and as long as the govt has not interfered with me and my practicing of freedom of religion, then the govt's Constitutional obligation has been met. Half of the problem is there isn't much of a pragmatic voice in social debates. The religious right gets bent out of shape about wanting their stuff everywhere with authority without much resort to "reason" or "legality" - and the atheist side makes a mockery of everything and anything that someone religious might believe. Not exactly a recipe for civility.

You and I are much more politcally aligned than you'd like to believe.

[bottomfeeder]

It won't make a difference unless they add to it, "Thou shalt not inbreed."

[GH2001]

It's the elected legislators' (not all of whom are lawyers) collective job to write legislation.  Wes's point was that he's not going to get medical advice from a lawyer, as it's not the lawyer's job to diagnose a health condition and prescribe a treatment.  The ACA doesn't dictate what medical treatments citizens should undergo when they are diagnosed will illnesses, and Dodd Frank doesn't dictate what investments financial institutions should choose.  Bad laws?  That's a different debate, but in relation to Wes's point, it's not relevant.

You are dead wrong on Dodd Frank. And both were written mainly by lawyers especially Dodd (JD-UL)/Frank (JD-Harvard). But I see your point in re to what Wes said. Just wanted to point out that the "experts" don't always have the most input on something that affects a lot of people. But people don't seem to have issue with that for the most part.

Now, t minus 3...2...until weskie calls me obtuse. 

It might surprise you guys to know that I also didn't hate the Mahr movie "Religious". He made some decent points in it - mainly about "organized" religion not the people themselves. I'll give him kudos for not just picking on Christians but also touching on the other Eastern religions as well, especially Islam - which he seemed to be more frustrated with than the Christians. A lot of my dislike for Mahr deals more with his condescending and dogmatic nature. I do think there are a lot of religion followers out there today that give those religions a bad name. Which is pretty much what Gahndi observed as well.

"I love your Christ. But so many of your Christians are nothing like your Christ."

[GH2001]

You and I are much more politcally aligned than you'd like to believe.

Never argued that. I think sometimes you let the far right religious loons force you to take a farther devil's advocate argument than you normally would. And Ive done that before too....just to spite them. It happens.

[Kaos]

My entire point, is that you claim some historical value argument as to why you think the ten commandments should be able to be displayed.  1.  The founding fathers (who some were Christian) and constitution strictly fought to have a separation of Church and State and 2. your argument is just to hide your true reason for wanting the commandments displayed.

Separation of church and state as you portray it is a lie.

The "fight" was against the US government creating a religion. It was not intended to prevent governmental entities from displaying religious material. It was to prevent the government from establishing a mandatory religion. So long as the government doesn't FORCE you to do something, so long as you maintain your personal freedom of choice -- which you do -- it should be fine.

The amendment was never intended to excise all mention of religion from state sponsored events. So long as you can choose not to participate the amendment served its purpose.

The twisting of the amendment to mean that no person can ever be offended is recent and utterly wrong.

Study history. Learn something.

[Vandy Vol]

You are dead wrong on Dodd Frank.

The law affects how the financial institutions can operate to some degree, yes, but again, the laws don't say, "It's better to invest in this commodity in summer months, so you're only allowed to invest in that commodity."  There is no financial advice being given through the law.  Rather, the law is aimed at preventing financial institutions from being predatory lenders, from being under-insured, and generally from being the cause of financial crises.  When the government asserts a compelling or legitimate interest, it has the ability to create legislation in furtherance of that interest.  And it is the job of the legislators, attorneys or not, to create that legislation.  Just because Dodd Frank affects financial institutions does not mean that it gives financial advice and thus must be created by financial advisers.  In fact, whether a compelling or legitimate interest exists on behalf of the government is a question of law, as is whether the government can intervene and how it can intervene to protect that interest, so it would be somewhat silly to state that financial advisers should be in charge of making those legal decisions.

Let's also not pretend like Dodd Frank is the first piece of legislation to ever interfere with how financial institutions operate.  One only needs to look to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, or the alterations that the Patriot Act made to the Bank Secrecy Act, to acknowledge that the regulation of financial institutions has been around for awhile and has been instituted by both political parties.  Again, there is no argument being made from me whether any of these laws were good or bad...I'm simply pointing out that just because legislators make a law that affects financial institutions does not mean they are inserting their professional opinion regarding financial advice.  They are laws that are meant to restrict certain actions that the government finds harmful to the nation in some way, and thus they are asserting their ability to create legislation through a compelling or legitimate interest of the government.

[AWK]

Separation of church and state as you portray it is a lie.

The "fight" was against the US government creating a religion. It was not intended to prevent governmental entities from displaying religious material. It was to prevent the government from establishing a mandatory religion. So long as the government doesn't FORCE you to do something, so long as you maintain your personal freedom of choice -- which you do -- it should be fine.

The amendment was never intended to excise all mention of religion from state sponsored events. So long as you can choose not to participate the amendment served its purpose.

The twisting of the amendment to mean that no person can ever be offended is recent and utterly wrong.

Study history. Learn something.

Yeah...no.

[bottomfeeder]

Doesn't the state have to ensure the residence have the ability to read and understand Engrish?

http://www.alabamas13.com/story/21963300/13-investigates-illiteracy-in-alabama

[Kaos]

Yeah...no.

Yes infinity.

[AWK]

Yes infinity.

I know this will not stick, but... Just because you think a certain way, doesn't make it true.

[Kaos]

I know this will not stick, but... Just because you think a certain way, doesn't make it true.

Look at history and forget all the BS that was fed into your brain by liberal professors and left-leaning "legal scholars."

Forget case law -- which is merely people interpreting something that could mean something different to a different group of people -- and look just at the history of this country's beginnings.

Why did the Pilgrims come?  Was it because they couldn't have Mosques in England? Because they were pissed at the Royal Lord Rory Moreth for displaying the Ten Commandments in Parliament?  No. 

What where they escaping? Pilgrims were separatists who wanted to separate from the Church of England and follow the teachings of John Calvin.  Puritans followed the Pilgrims. Their goal was to "purify" the church and shed it of Catholic trappings.  They were pissed, actually, because they didn't like the way non-Puritans worshiped in England.

So there's the foundation in the 1600s.  Second and third generation later, we're writing a breakup letter with England, followed by our New Country resolutions. 

When they spoke of not allowing the government to establish a religion, what was their frame of reference? Fleeing the freaking Church of England and breaking away from the other "state" religion, Catholicism. 

So you tell me now, it was their intent to ban all public displays of Christianity?  I laugh uproariously at your lack of historical reference.

[CCTAU]

So you tell me now, it was their intent to ban all public displays of Christianity?  I laugh uproariously at your lack of historical reference.

But Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists. The Baptists for goodness sake. He knew that if he let them, they would force the Ten Commandments be hung in every building in the country.

Don't you get it! Jefferson was the only person to sign the declaration I independence. What he believed WAS law!

[Kaos]

But Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Baptists. The Baptists for goodness sake. He knew that if he let them, they would force the Ten Commandments be hung in every building in the country.

Don't you get it! Jefferson was the only person to sign the declaration I independence. What he believed WAS law!

They don't even know what he meant by it anyway.  It's disgraceful how little history people actually know. 

The letter wasn't intended to create the "separation" these idiot judges have rammed upon us in the last 40 years, it actually was the opposite.  It was a political maneuver designed to show the people of Connecticut that Jefferson was a religious man since he had been vilified as an atheist or worse by Conn. politicians during his presidential campaign.  His goal was to reassure them that he was a religious man in some respects and that he would not use federal power to support those in Conn who sought to establish an official state religion that would infringe on the practices of the Baptists. 

"separation of church and state" my red ass.

If Jefferson was such a god-hating "keep 'em separated" president, I wonder why he, as president, used and approved federal funds to build Christian ministries and to aid missionaries? 

Jefferson believed in state rights.  His "wall" was of a federal nature.  As governor, he established numerous religious holidays. As president he opted not to.  Why?  Or doesn't history matter? 

Why does only this one letter among thousands matter when Jefferson provided better insight in his second inaugural address?

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the powers of the general [i.e., federal] government. I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

Parse away.

It was Hugo Black, not Jefferson, who was so ignorant and agenda oriented that he refused to understand and completely twisted the meaning. 

With the right Supreme Court and the right case, it can always be untwisted. Which is why this effort matters whether it's for the 300th time or not.   

[Vandy Vol]

Funny how the arguments against separation of church and state keep flip flopping between "Read the Constitution like a lay person, the words aren't in there" and "Look beyond the Constitution and search for historical context."

Meanwhile, both arguments ignore the actual wording of the first amendment (no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, not a restriction on a law specifically creating a U.S. church), as well as ignoring the historical context of the Enlightenment and most of the influential founders primarily being deists who repeatedly made references to a pretty strict separation of church and state.

Then there's the existence of Article VI in the Constitution, as well as the wording of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was unanimously ratified by the 1797 Senate.  It's not as if the first amendment is the only prohibition of religion in government; the other references go beyond simply restricting the government from creating a U.S. church.  It's rather silly to state that the only thing the Constitution restricts in relation to religion is the creation of a U.S. church when Article VI plainly offers an additional restriction, and when the first amendment does not specifically refer to a U.S. church, but rather broadly states that no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be passed.

[Kaos]

Funny how the arguments against separation of church and state keep flip flopping between "Read the Constitution like a lay person, the words aren't in there" and "Look beyond the Constitution and search for historical context."

Meanwhile, both arguments ignore the actual wording of the first amendment (no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, not a restriction on a law specifically creating a U.S. church), as well as ignoring the historical context of the Enlightenment and most of the influential founders primarily being deists who repeatedly made references to a pretty strict separation of church and state.

Then there's the existence of Article VI in the Constitution, as well as the wording of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli that was unanimously ratified by the 1797 Senate.  It's not as if the first amendment is the only prohibition of religion in government; the other references go beyond simply restricting the government from creating a U.S. church.  It's rather silly to state that the only thing the Constitution restricts in relation to religion is the creation of a U.S. church when Article VI plainly offers an additional restriction, and when the first amendment does not specifically refer to a U.S. church, but rather broadly states that no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be passed.

Surely you're truly not this obtuse. 

Article I (and the entire Bill of Rights) refers to federal power.  So that's out.  States can do what they want. 

Article VI?  Really? No.

And I could give a shoot about a Tripoli.  Don't live there. Don't want to.

As for the "read the Constitution" vs. "what they meant" I stick with read it.  Other people have tried to claim "well it means this based on some letter that's not a part of it. I think that's stupid.  But if you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis, and enough historical knowledge to see past the sliver of manure you were shoveled.  Too often the SC lacks this ability.  Many here clearly do.

[Vandy Vol]

It's disgraceful how little history people actually know.

The letter wasn't intended to create the "separation" these idiot judges have rammed upon us in the last 40 years, it actually was the opposite.

2014 - 1878 ≤ 40 years.  Got it, historical guru.

Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

CONTENTS OF JEFFERSON'S LETTER APPEAR HERE

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

[Kaos]

2014 - 1878 ≤ 40 years.  Got it, historical guru.

Hugo Black.  Left us in 1971.  So 43 years plus a little. 

Math.  I has it.  Knowledge of history, you don't.

Your Jefferson "quote" means nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

[Vandy Vol]

Article I (and the entire Bill of Rights) refers to federal power.  So that's out.  States can do what they want.

Maybe in your world and with your interpretations, but since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in the 1920's, the Bill of Rights applies to states.

Article VI?  Really? No.

Article VI prevents the government from requiring religious tests before a person can take office.  If the Constitution's only prohibition against religious involvement by the government was to ban the creation of a U.S. church, then why does this article exist?  If the government can, in fact, do whatever it wants in relation to religion other than creating a U.S. church, then how do you explain away the existence of Article VI's last sentence?

And I could give a shoot about a Tripoli.  Don't live there. Don't want to.

The treaty was ratified, unanimously, by many of the same people who drafted the Constitution.  It was also chronologically a lot closer in time to the creation of the Constitution, and thus much more likely to have an accurate reflection of what was intended when the Constitution was created.

As for the "read the Constitution" vs. "what they meant" I stick with read it.  Other people have tried to claim "well it means this based on some letter that's not a part of it. I think that's stupid.  But if you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis, and enough historical knowledge to see past the sliver of manure you were shoveled.  Too often the SC lacks this ability.  Many here clearly do.

Then surely you've acknowledged that the Constitution does not specifically prohibit the U.S. from only creating a government church?  Rather, the plain wording of the first amendment prohibits the government from creating any law ("no law") in reference or regard to ("respecting") an establishment of religion.

Hugo Black.  Left us in 1971.  So 43 years plus a little. 

Math.  I has it.  Knowledge of history, you don't.

Your Jefferson "quote" means nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

If you're going to use outside influences to frame your argument, at least have enough historical background to actually understand the genesis.  I didn't reference the Hugo Black opinion;  I referenced Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 Supreme Court case.   This opinion stated that Jefferson's comments concerning the separation of church and state "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."  You act as if judges have only been cramming separation of church and state down our throats for the past "40 years" when, in fact, a Supreme Court that was much closer chronologically to the creation of the Constitution stated the same.