Jeff Sessions announces new 'Religious Liberty Task Force' at Department of Justice

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Ehehehe. You have Spanish roots as well?

Que dices, amigo?

No, Italian, we're the ones who gave them that cockamamie religion.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: interupt42


I'm all for the rounding up of women, as long as it'd dealer's choice on my part.

absolutely, but also important to round them up when having company and sammiches need making.

I can see why it would freak you out that people have their rights protected. I realize these folks aren’t gay or some sort of transgendered, but believe it or not every American deserves to have their personal liberty preserved.

All Americans do indeed deserve to have their Constitutional rights protected equally.

Anyone who says differently is a traitor to this country and to our Constitution.

The First Amendment which ratified in 1791 states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, the phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.

James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights
The First Amendment which ratified in 1791 states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, the phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution.
The phrase of Jefferson (see above) was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[74] The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court incorporated the establishment clause, determining that it applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.

Prior to its incorporation, unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to explicitly apply the establishment clause to states in the 1870s and 1890s.[76][77]
The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[78][79]
Williams was motivated by historical abuse of governmental power, and believed that government must remove itself from anything that touched upon human beings' relationship with God, advocating a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world" in order to keep the church pure.
Through his work Rhode Island's charter was confirmed by King Charles II of England, which explicitly stated that no one was to be "molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of religion."
Williams is credited with helping to shape the church and state debate in England, and influencing such men as John Milton and particularly John Locke, whose work was studied closely by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other designers of the U.S. Constitution. Williams theologically derived his views mainly from Scripture and his motive is seen as religious, but Jefferson's advocation of religious liberty is seen as political and social.[80]
The Treaty of Tripol

Main article: Treaty of Tripoli
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[81]
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were
intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.[82]

Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral.[83] The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.
Use of the phrase[edit]

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper soon thereafter. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:
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.[20]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:
August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts. … He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether. … Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law." … Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law." … [T]he State[s] … seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution. … it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might … establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended. … Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. … He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[84]

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[85] Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[86] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[87] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[88] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded,

We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.[89]

Thomas Jefferson's tombstone. The inscription, as he stipulated, reads, "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of ... the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom ...."
This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Vaticanus Mafiasonicus!

I was an Italian bastard in my last life as well, this Renaissance thingy really got my spirits up. The church... not so much. Sicily or where are your ancestors from?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
All Americans do indeed deserve to have their Constitutional rights protected equally.

Anyone who says differently is a traitor to this country and to our Constitution.

And the way to do it is through enforcing existing laws and statutes, not creating more government agencies. Anyone who wants another task force is a big government, tax payer money-wasting asshat.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I can see why it would freak you out that people have their rights protected. I realize these folks aren’t gay or some sort of transgendered, but believe it or not every American deserves to have their personal liberty preserved.

Yea, I'm sure Session's has everyone's best intentions at heart. He's proven to be open minded and not make policies specifically molded by his own beliefs.

Sarcasm aside, I'll eat my words if he truly does this to protect all people of faith. That being said, I won't hold my breath. If it smells like a duck....

a reply to: PublicOpinion


Malventum.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
All Americans do indeed deserve to have their Constitutional rights protected equally.

Anyone who says differently is a traitor to this country and to our Constitution.

And the way to do it is through enforcing existing laws and statutes, not creating more government agencies. Anyone who wants another task force is a big government, tax payer money-wasting asshat.

I tend to favor less government interference in my life over more, certainly.

Spending taxpayer dollars in what seems to be an obvious political ploy is extremely distasteful.

We do have separation of church and state, but we have rules regarding rights of religions in this country, no one religion or group can target another group or religion. This also protects atheists if they consider their atheism to be a belief system....which technically it is and it qualifies atheism as a religion in some ways. Many Athiest's entity appears to be a group of Humans with shared non-religious beliefs..

a reply to: Gryphon66


But think of the children!!!!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
All Americans do indeed deserve to have their Constitutional rights protected equally.

Anyone who says differently is a traitor to this country and to our Constitution.

And the way to do it is through enforcing existing laws and statutes, not creating more government agencies. Anyone who wants another task force is a big government, tax payer money-wasting asshat.

Yea, what happened to "we don't need more government"?

This is a clear example of hypocrisy should government work in one sides favor.

I'm against both sides doing clear power grabs. This may not be one, but it sure as hell looks like it.

I was raised as a Christian, so I can emphasize and respect their beliefs.... Until they push it on me, again.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I understand what the first means. Really I do.
But at the same time the state made a law protecting the church.
The law only says the state can't control the church or force the people to the church.

As far as I can tell, sessions is trying to do the same, make sure churches have freedom to run as they wish. All churches. Not just Christian.

I see no way the state can be totally separated from the church. Our presidents still place their hand on a bible during an official ceremony.


We have a law that says shall not be infringed too.
But there are infringements.

a reply to: Bluntone22


I guess we can chalk it up to "it's complicated"? That would be the only way to describe it

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
Yea, what happened to "we don't need more government"?

This policy will be supported by pretend 'conservatives' and phony Libertarians because reasons.

I want a task force to scour the countryside with clubs beating anyone who hasn't a full understanding of the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Professional politicians, i.e. Democrats and Republicans, do not have the interests of the American people (or any people) at heart, particularly children.

a reply to: Bluntone22

As far as I can tell, sessions is trying to do the same, make sure churches have freedom to run as they wish. All churches. Not just Christian.

Dude, don't piss on my foot and call it rain. I get what you're saying and would agree if I had an ounce of faith in that being the case.

Muslim ban ring a bell?

This administration is in no place to take this initiative, plain and simple.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

What happens when someone's religious right infringes your personal rights?

Seems not to work well for the personal rights throughout history...

I want a task force to scour the countryside with clubs beating anyone who hasn't a full understanding of the Constitution.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lol, want to form a malitia?

And I'm being watched now haha. J/k, I'd probably get funding.