Five myths about church and state in America

Reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Well stated.

Will star and friend you when I get home.

Very nice.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
History changes? Not unless you have a time machine, although you are correct if you are talking about progressive "revisionist" history, you know, the lies and half truths that are taught to kids in our public education system.

...no, history changes no matter what. It's added to. An addition is a change. It's really simple as a concept. And the history that I learned in public education is probably a hell of a lot more accurate than what you learned, but you just decided to lob a typical conservative softball against some mythic public school propaganda system which you cannot prove.

By the way, the 14th amendment is not in Article 6. Article 6 is about debts, supremacy and oaths. The supremacy clause does state that federal law supersedes state law, but then we are right back where we started because it all depends on one's definition of separation of church and state, and if one believes that was the intent of the first amendment. The 14th amendment talks about citizenship and electing representatives. More specifically, the original intent of the 14th amendment was to make clear that freed slaves were in fact American citizens. The sole purpose of the 14th amendment was to protect the citizenship of freed slaves.

...so you're just going to ignore the scholarship. And again, we're right back where we started.

States cannot prohibit free speech, states cannot quarter troops, states cannot hold mass executions without trials, states cannot control the press.

I'm not against the separation of church and state because in it's original intent and meaning it is a good thing. What I am against is the current definition of the term because it is dead wrong. To me it is a non issue and another glaring example, among many, of progressive ignorance/deceit.

What's completely wrong with the idea that the only way to have freedom of religion is to have freedom from religion(s)?

The 9th amendment simply means that other rights aside from those listed may exist, and just because they are not listed doesn't mean they can be violated. That has nothing to do with separation of church and state, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not the Constitution is a living and breathing document.

...it's an open-ended proposition. It's a proposition that the document known as the Constitution is necessarily incomplete because they realized they hadn't thought of everything...so they tacked on a bit that basically reads "You can't use legal loop holes to violate rights"

This is similar to the line "we hold these truths to be self evident.." The meaning behind that is that they felt the bill of rights, among others(9th amendment), existed regardless of whether or not they wrote them down on paper, because they are natural rights granted by God.

...that line isn't in the Constitution. It's in a document written by a guy that believed in a divine watchmaker and edited all the religious stuff out of the Bible to try and make it a better book....and it's a non-governing document.

If the Constitution were literally set on fire today and it burned into ash would it still exist? Would the bill of rights still exist? Could I still own a gun? Could you still say whatever you want? The short answer to all of those questions is yes.

And I could still go outside and straight up stab a guy. Freedoms aren't granted nor are they provided by fiat of some divine monarch...they're there. I can stab people if I want to, I have the freedom. I self-impose a restriction of that freedom for the sake of living in a stable society where people hopefully don't stab me. Of course, you're not really addressing anything I said (even though you went through the trouble of quoting it all).

The only way that the Constitution is a living document is through the amendment process, and that's it. This is clear in the Federalist Papers, which were written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. The sole purpose of the Federalist Papers were to explain in greater detail what the Constitution was and the meaning behind the numerous ideas within the Constitution.

...the Federalist Papers weren't actually written all at once...and if you actually bother to read them you realize that the three men actually disagreed with each other on certain points.

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 78 "Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it prior to such an act."

And guess what...this isn't a binding legal interpretation as Hamilton wasn't a judge. ...or have you not bothered reading the articles of the Constitution.

I could care less what a Federal Judge has to say about it.

Then you might as well not care what the Constitution has to say about it.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Care to guess what I'm citing?

I could care less what any politician says about it. In my opinion, any judge or politician that feels the Constitution is "living and breathing" and would attempt to change it through the legislative or judicial process is in direct violation of their oath and should be thrown out of office.

Well, I guess that just makes you the worst sort of fascist. Toss the people who disagree with you out of office and say it's because they violated their oath. It's far more sinister than simply killing them because it makes you seem like the good guy.

The intent of the framers is more than clear, and if you read the Federalist Papers you will know their intent.

...and the framers aren't infallible. Their intent is not legally binding. Their intent is that of a bunch of people who, though quite enlightened for their time, were no more or less intelligent than the people of today...actually, I'd venture to say that it is doubtless that I am far more qualified to write a governing document than the framers of the Constitution simply by fact of having been exposed to an additional 200+ years of political and ethical philosophy....hell, I had a better understanding of the universe at age 10 than any of the framers had.

And the Federalist Papers are slightly contradictory. Try reading them over and taking each author by point, you'll see where the differences of opinion are.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact.

...it's not a matter of fact. You cannot know the intent of every single party that was involved in writing the Constitution...unless you have that time machine you mentioned before.

What progressives need to do is at least be honest and say "I don't care what the Constitution says or what the original intent was...I'm doing it anyway." That is what they are doing, so they might as well be honest and say it.

I care what the original intent was...I just don't care what the original letter of the law was. If the intent was to protect freedom of expression...I'll extend that to arts, sciences, the internet, etc. If the original intent of the interstate commerce clause was to regulate how business was done over state lines I will apply that to large corporations. I'll even go so far as to say that universal healthcare falls under the powers enumerated by Article I because the founders wouldn't have actually understood the incredible power of proper medical care.

*I was going to include some great websites on this matter, but you would only say that they are biased or ridiculous, so what's the point. You are set in your ways, and so am I

I'm not set in my ways, you literally just have no argument. Your argument is based solely on the idea that the Constitution was divinely mandated which is just downright illogical.

My argument is that history is constantly changing because we're constantly adding to it and no 200+ year old document is going to be able to keep up.

Of course, you'd rather just toss a couple of centuries of academic thought and progress that the founders would have embraced onto the pillar of a mythic exaltation of the founders.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
My argument is that history is constantly changing because we're constantly adding to it and no 200+ year old document is going to be able to keep up.

Yes! When this argument comes up - - I just say: "Look at the court cases".

Separation of Church and State - - is taken seriously by current law and cases won.