Well said. 
Wow! Five quotes from the Founders in support of one interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Guess that ends the debate. I mean, it’s not like anyone could find five quotes (or fifty) from the Founders in support of the competing interpretation. :rolleyes:
Sorry for the snarkiness, but here have been quite a few threads in the past few months that have been host to the battle of the founders’ quotes. They prove nothing (especially out of context), even though there are many, many more quotes from them in support of the interpretation you disagree with.
Feel free.
So basically what you people are saying is that in America, I have absolutely no right to establish a community the way I want to establish it? I have to conform to a certain cultural edict that respects the non-religion of secularism over my religion? So it’s ok to push your beliefs on me as long as it’s non-religion, but not ok if it’s religion? So your rights as a secularist supersede mine as a religious person? You think that somehow the constitution supports you in this?
Mrs. Herhdahl was NOT a victim. She moved to a town that was doing it a certain way. I guess she never heard the old expression “when in Rome.” It’s amazing to me that people are so incapable of seeing nuance in situations that they paint this woman as a ‘victim’ when she is clearly the perpetrator. The only thing that the people of the town are guilty of is going about their lives as they always had, but somehow they victimized this poor newcomer by maintaining their old traditions.
Why did she move there? It must have been the bustling job market right? It seems to me that this town didn’t FORCE the children to say the prayer, they just said it over the speakers. They tried to keep the children from hearing the prayer when the mother kept making a big stink about it. So far it seems like the only one trying to PUSH their beliefs on another person was her. Certainly the townspeople did some mean things to the family, but that was AFTER this outsider came in and started telling them how they should be living their lives based upon some sanctimonious bullshit liberal intellectual crusade for justice. I’m sure she’s the town pariah, and she fucking deserves it.
The only people who’s religious freedoms were violated were the people of the town. Her kids had the option of opting out of the prayer, but you know what real life works by certain principles and if you insist on living somewhere while remaining and outsider, you’re never going to be assimilated, and no amount of governmental force is EVER going to change that aspect of human nature.
This was a sheer abuse of the 1st amendment, and looked at only on purely intellectual idealistic grounds, and didn’t think about the reality of the situation, didn’t take a pragmatic approach to defending the rights of the community and it’s culture. The first amendment is supposed to protect someone’s religious rights, and it’s been coopted by crusading bitches that want to limit people’s rights based upon some shallow secular ideal. Luckily Karma is on the side of the town even if Justice isn’t.
Monty Victim my ass, she was the perpetrator.
Erek
You sound petty and petulant.
Did their words mean nothing to you. It is not about the quantity of the quotes but the quality.
A large part of what the US is about is to protect the minority from the majority. Especially in Religious matters.
Jim
Too bad it failed this time and the minority in that small town was shot down by the majority in the larger secular legal system.
All Magellan is saying is that you can find a quote from the founding father’s to support just about any argument you want if you take them out of context.
People too often cling to idealism, and don’t think about the practical consequences of their actions. People crusading for secularism do just as much damage as any religious nut, contributing to the distrust in our society of anyone that’s different. With crusading cunts like this, I do understand why Christians feel persecuted.
Erek
What Frank said. In conceding that Robert H. Jackson, having served on the Supreme Court during the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower, I’d like for you to make not fewer than 80% of your quotes from actual Founders (Cotton Mather quotes should probably be kept to a minimum).
I’m sorry I thought we were talking about Christanity, which I heard a rumor might have a ‘deity’.
You have absolutely no right to estblish a government the way you want to establish it. You may not decide that the mayoralty will be passed along to the heir of your choice. You may not decide (in the event that your community is large enough to get its own representative in the State House, or in Congress), that the representative will be chosen by the preacher at your community’s church. In establishing the government that will run your community, you will follow the rules set forth in the United States Constitution. Or you can establish your community some place where the United States Constitution is not the Law of the Land. 'Course, then, you wouldn’t be in America.
What Frank said. In conceding that Robert H. Jackson, having served on the Supreme Court during the presidencies of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower does not qualify as a Founder, I’d like for you to make not fewer than 80% of your quotes from actual Founders (Cotton Mather quotes should probably be kept to a minimum).
Sorry.
Well right is a bit of a misnomer here, people do things all the time they have no right doing.
Why not? What in the Constitution prevents this?
Again where in the Constitution is this? Are you saying a preacher is banned from being a representative? Where do you get this from?
Again I see nothing that violates the Constitution.
Or take over the US, or an amendment can be passed to allow the things that are currently allowed under the Constitution as I understand it.
A slight misread on this one, but the point stand, why would you like to ban someone on the basis of their religion/faith? Again I don’t see any constitutional grounds, and actually see grounds for allowing it.
I argee with you. I was in somewhat a silmiar situation (depression, was in ministry due to mostly peer pressure) and find all the spirtual talk threatening. Everyone of them was either saying, “Think of what God has done for you? How could you be so calculative” and “How can you live a life that is pleasing and worthy to God if you spend your days lazing around?”
I find churches threatening too. They always have agenda. They do not preach anymore, but speak about their agendas all day long. “We will share the gospel to all corners of the earth by 2000!” “We will publish our own Bible study aid and go to Malaysia/Indonesia/Insert Third World Country here.” “We plan to send out 12 teams…” “We plan to evangelise…” “We want to expand our church membership…”
It has gotten to a point that I felt as if the church-people are all so nice, so caring, so considerate, because I somehow could “fit” their agenda.
Which is why I cease church-going, and stop mixing with Christians in general. I am always afriad that they have an agenda.
No, you were making another fallacy: that Christianity is the only faith and all other faiths are “just religions.” It’s not and they’re not.
Kanicbird, he’s not saying that the Mayor’s son cannot be elected mayor, or that the minister cannot be elected as state representative. What he’s saying is that you cannot set up your local government so that the mayoralty is an inherited position, or so that the representive is chosen by the minister instead of the voters. And the reason this is so is because local governments are “creatures of the state” … it established them, sets up how their governments are to be run, and can abolish them if it so chooses. And the Constitution guarantees that every state shall have “a republican form of government” and also that every citizen is entitled to “the equal protection of the laws.” The courts have understood this to mean one man, one vote – if you’re of age and not otherwise disqualified (insane, an incarcerated felon, etc.) you’re entitled to cast your vote for the people that will govern you. And that right cannot be taken away and given to somebody else (hereditary mayoralty, clergyman deciding who will serve as state representative, etc.).
Granted, the Constitution can be amended, or the entire U.S. government can be overthrown, as you specify. But in the absence of Nehemiah Scudder, that is not within the realm of this discussion (I think). If you bring that in, all bets are off.
As I mentioned, this has been covered in a few threads in the last few months (3-6). If you’re truly interested, feel free to do a search. If you do you’ll see that what I said is true.
If you search for the threads from the past few months (as I suggested that Frank do), you’ll find what you seek in the precentage you seek.
The “community” could have established a religious community without any interference from the government. They could have set up a religious community with its own rules and methods of fundraising and made it clear that anyone who wished to join them would have to enter the community.
They did not.
They established religious practices in public (governmental) facities that required everyone who did not share their explicit beliefs to pay the same taxes and depend on the same laws (while the “community” accepted the support of the taxes collected by the Federal and State governments from others who did not share their beliefs) to either participate, actively or tacitly, in their method of worship.
Ms. Herdahl moved to the community when her husband came seeking employment, unaware that this stealth religious community had taken over the town and when she became aware of it, she asked them to conform to the law of the land.
Had they actually made the effort to establish a religious community, the issue would have never arisen. No one has attempted to impose any anti-religious practices in the community–only seeking to ensure that the community dd not impose religious practices on others.
Do not!! 
Quite the opposite. Their words deal a great deal to me. Almost as much as what they they thought and believed, which we try to glean from the words thay left us. But taking a line or two from their writings and holding it up as proof of anything is a waste of time. It devolves into a battle of the quotes. And to make matters worse, most of them offered will be out/devoid of context, often copied and pasted from partisan websites, who often don’t even get the quotes or attributions right, if they supply them at all.
The issue is not majority rule. If it were, at least it would make more sense than minority rule. The issue is what the Founders intended, which cannot be understood from a few quotes, out of context at that. That was the point of my post, which you, for some reason, seem to disagree with. Why?
I’m curious. Why do you say “Especially in religious matters”. Shouldn’t the protection you claim apply equally to all rights?
Nuh-uhh. That’s not the way it works around here. You claim to have seen Founders’ quotes posted that argue the opposite of SteveG1’s quotes, which tend to support his assertion:
You’re the one who bears the burden of supporting that claim. Cough 'em up.