You read me incorrectly then becasue this is NOT what i said or ment.
I’ve already wasted enough time furnishing many of the quotes in question. Given the futility of the exercise, as I described, I see no reason to waste more, which is why I posted what I did. If you’re interested or doubt the veracity of my statement (which, if you have anything more than the most basic knowledge of the Founders or the Founding, is quite astonishing), you may search for them. If not, that is equally fine with me.
I appreciated your post. Thanks. It’s sad to think that the people that were stopped may still think themselves as soldiers for the Lord rather than just plain wrong. I run sound at a little church and they are talking about putting God back in America {red flag, alert alert} Fortunatly they have the sense to know that they cannot legislate or manipulate or threaten God people to accept their version of God. Their goal is simply to be out in the community doing positive things and sharing their beliefs when the opportunity comes up. One thing they got permission from the mayor to do is read the Bible out loud in a public place. No pressure. No cries of “repent the end is near” but simply reading the text from beginng to end out loud in a series of shifts. Interesting approach. I think that kind of thing is supported and protected by the Constitution. Of course that opens up a load of ppossibilities. Can Muslims read the Koran aloud in the public square? I guess that means they can. How about Pagan, Wiccans and even Satanists?
In this thread, you attempted to prove that the religious beliefs of the Founders demonstrated that they intended religion to be a part of the government. You failed.
In post #341, you posted some quotes intended to prove that the Founders had religious beliefs, and believed that religion was important. So what? It’s very clear that they also believed that their religion (or lack thereof) had no place in government, and that government had no place in their religion (or lack thereof). Your quotes do not address that issue, only that of their beliefs in some sort of God.
Meaning exactly what? These people (the founders) included among them atheists, deists, theists, and preachers. Some were very religious, others not at all. But, one thing they reached agreement on was, that no one shall have someone else’s religion forced on them, there would be no state religion, there would be no religious taxes etc. Everyone would be allowed to believe what they choose. So what’s your point?
You know, I think we’re getting beyond the “fundamental disconnect” here. It’s the assertion, I believe, of both sides in this dispute, that some things are held to be individual freedoms, to be protected against the will of the majority. That I might find your opinions, magellan, to be reprehensible, and be able to swing a majority to my side, does not give me and my supports the power to stifle you. You have the right of freedom of speech, and no government is permitted to deprive you of that by act of law. (In the present context, a private entity, the Chicago Reader, Inc., in consideration of having offered you and me the privilege of expressing yourself on its SDMB, requires that we restrict ourselves from some particular elements of expression: “You’re a troll!” or “How can I break copyright law?” But that’s not a government function.)
I think the problem is in identifying exactly what rights are so protected, and in behalf of whom. And that’s grist for a good dozen Great Debates.
As for your final question, it’s my belief that nobody is saying that religious matters are especially protected, only that it’s only in matters of religion that some people believe that they have God-given rights to tromple upon the rights of others. The logic as I understand it goes something like this: Since there is only one true God, and we know what He wants, it’s incumbent upon us, for their own good, that we compel others who haven’t come to the realization of what it is that He wants to conform to what we already know that He wants. At rock bottom, that’s the argument used, even in matters not at first grasp not especially religious: God says that abortion is murder, so we need to ban it. God says that homosexuality is an abomination, so we need to change the gays, because He and we love them and don’t want them to go to Hell. My opinion of what’s morally right doesn’t include hate speech, so we need to ban it. And so on.
Yes, I failed to prove—in that thread and others—what the I think the founders intended. Hence my disinclination to go through the exercise again. I would point out that those taking the other side—again, in that thread and others—suffered the same failing. The fact is that based on even the entirety of their writiings, we cannot be certain of what they intended. There are writings that support both sides. From the reading and research I’ve done I feel confident in my interpretation. But I understand that we all come into this with certain biases which will no doubt skew what we digest.
Someday, if I have the time and can muster the energy, I’d like to start a thread that looks at the issue in depth. But to throw around a few quotes here and there will not—and should not—sway the intellectually serious one way or the other.
I was simply echoing (ironically) a point that you had made in another thread:
If I had remembered that quote existed before I posted what you replied to, I would have simply referred you to it without the snarkiness. I just happened upon it by accident while reviewing the link Frank supplied.
There is an argument to be made that the Establishment Clause did not, in fact, mean that the government had no place in religion, but only that the FEDERAL government had no place in that realm. This argument views the Establishment Clause more as a federalism issue than a blanket separation of church and ALL forms of government: the federal government would be forclosed from making any law “respecting” the Establishment of religion. It appears that, under this view, the Establishment Clause was meant to protect the States that did have established religions from federal intervention.
That is certainly a valid argument, but I believe it has been put forth to the federal courts, and to the Supreme Court on numerous occasions in the past. And if I am not mistaken, the rulings have indicated that such interpretation as you put forth has not and is not going to be upheld.
Since there is a fairly long track record of such determinations against said argument, it seems to me to be fruitless to re-hash them over and over again, each time a community decides, by popular majority, to inject a religion into the local government and public facilities. Especially when it injects one religion but bars others. For communities to repeatedly try to justify such a practice via a repeatedly rejected argument seems an unfruitful practice.
SCOTUS’s interpretation changed after the 14th Amendment was added and the Establishment clause was incorported (properly in my view) against the states. Which doesn’t change the argument that the Founders may have meant the Establishment clause only to apply to the Feds. You are correct that the argument, after 1947, doesn’t hold much weight.
I missed this comment of yours, Erek. So, here’s a clue for you, free of charge: Yes, she and her children, along with all the children in that school, were the victims of an unconstitutional and thus illegal act of the local government. The victim is not the perpetrator here.
The part guaranteeing a republican {not the party, the type} form of government. That part prohibits, among other types of government, monarchies.
The same part that guarantees a republican form of government thus prohibits, among other types of government, both oligarchies and theocracies.
BTW, have you even read the Constitution?
Then perhaps you shouldn’t have made posts #88 and #129 in this thread.
Heh, the town I grew up in Los LUNAs New Mexico, that was named after the wealthy ranching family the LUNA family had a mayor named Fred LUNA.
Erek
My point being simply that even with our structure the reality sometimes works out in different ways than others.
tomndebb Well you’ve supplied the most compelling arguments here, so I’m gonna let it rest.
I’d go and read the Necronomicon in public but of course I live in New York, nobody would care.
Erek
So what? Unless you’re going to pretend that he was appointed to that office by his father and was not elected to it under the laws, said laws themselves being subject to constitutinal review.
And if you are, then that’s all it is, a pretense.
My point is that the law may be a certain way, but the reality of the situation might be another, and the way that people interpret that law varies wildly.
In this particular case, the mayoralty CAN be passed from Father to Son, but they have to be clever about it, they can’t just do it by fiat.
Erek
Are you on crack or drunk? I’m seriously asking you that. The mayoralty can’t just be “passed from father to son” like it’s an inherited office. The son has to run for the office, he has to be elected to it.
As I said in my posting above, your assertion is just a pretense. Either that or you’re completely deluded.
Sure he’s gotta be elected, but elections can be finagled. cite