Welcome to the age of the far left!

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Quadrivium
This is to keep our country's government from becoming like yours, faith based.

I wouldn't say our government is faith based (at least in terms of the laws passed, etc.), we just have institutions which could be regarded as an 'establishment of religion', one of which is the rather symbolic role of head of state.

Anyway, wouldn't what you describe be the separating of 'Church' (religion) and 'State' (the government) by essentially making the government strictly neutral with regard to religion?

Separation and neutral are not the same thing. Some people in America (ACLU mostly) are using the faulty claim "separation of Church and State" to force the Government to abolish religion and it seems they have Christians in their sights more than any other group.

reply to post by Quadrivium


It damn well should be a right because I don't want the likes of Christine O'Donnell or friggin' Pat Robertson telling me what I can and cannot do behind closed doors.

I will masturbate, engage in mindless protected sex and smoke/drink all I damn well please! If the constitution won't protect that, then to hell with it!

reply to post by Muckster


You sir, are a genius.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. We need more people willing to use the right-wing "logic" against the right-wing sheep.

Come to think of it, there is no such thing as right-wing or left-wing when it comes to reality.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

It damn well should be a right because I don't want the likes of Christine O'Donnell or friggin' Pat Robertson telling me what I can and cannot do behind closed doors.

I will masturbate, engage in mindless protected sex and smoke/drink all I damn well please! If the constitution won't protect that, then to hell with it!

Maybe you would enjoy reading the constitution, if you can not understand it, they do offer courses.
These people should not be able to do more than the constitution will allow.
I said SHOULD, because those making the law today do not understand the constitution, they pass bills without reading them, they have outside third parties writing these bills, and they vote on these things without a clue of their full content. These are Repub. and Dems. that are doing this. They all need to be showed the door.
You can get as drunk as you like and play with yourself as much as you want! Enjoy!

I am not surprised that this thread as been high jacked and the OP attacked, for stating a view that many of the middle to right ground in the UK feel, and they still see that their views on what needs to be done ar being ignored.

Why is it we see the BNP getting MEPs elected and not the far left parties in the UK getting MEPs elected? This is because people are voting more to the right than the left, as they feel that this is the only way to send a message to Government that they need to listen.

I would agree with woodwardjnr that we are leaning more to the right than the left, and most of the media in the UK is controlled by what many would regarding as right lean.

And just what is achieved by saying the OP is writing for 6 years olds. I would suspect that there are very few 6 year olds as members on ATS. If you have nothing constructive to say, then say nothing. I will happly debate anyone of ATS with a reasoned viewpoint.

And guess what, I fully agree with the OP. Why have we not attacked people who burn the British flag? These people are traitors and need to be removed from this society.

Keep posting Haydn_17, and ignore the trendy lefties attacks.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Separation and neutral are not the same thing.

If you're neither prohibiting the free excercise of religion nor respecting (or creating your own) establishments of religion, how can you be anything other than neutral?

Some people in America (ACLU mostly) are using the faulty claim "separation of Church and State" to force the Government to abolish religion

Sources for the ignorant foreigner?

and it seems they have Christians in their sights more than any other group.

Probably because Christianity is the entrenched religion in the USA.

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Why is it we see the BNP getting MEPs elected and not the far left parties in the UK getting MEPs elected?

You are aware that the Green Party (a 'far-left' party) got more votes (and the same number of seats) as the BNP in the most recent European Elections? In total five parties got more votes than the BNP. I don't know about you, but to me that says that they're far from being the voice of the British people.

This is because people are voting more to the right than the left, as they feel that this is the only way to send a message to Government that they need to listen.

No arguments there. Of course, only the more extreme people bother to turn out to the European elections in the first place.

And just what is achieved by saying the OP is writing for 6 years olds.

It was a comment on the seeming immaturity of the OP.

And guess what, I fully agree with the OP.

That's unfortunate.

Why have we not attacked people who burn the British flag?

Because we like to at least pretend we believe in free speech and free expression? A better question would by why you view the flag (a piece of coloured fabric) as being so important.

These people are traitors and need to be removed from this society.

This would be funny were I not so sure that you actually believe it.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

If you're neither prohibiting the free excercise of religion nor respecting (or creating your own) establishments of religion, how can you be anything other than neutral?

Neutral would be fine. But the ACLU who claim they are "Working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend individual rights and liberties" are actually infringing on the rights and liberties of millions. And they use the state and federal Government to do it by twisting and turning the First Amendment to mean something totally different than what it says.

Sources for the ignorant foreigner?

Crosses-
www.breakthechain.org...
www.halfwaytoconcord.com...
www.brentmorrison.com...
Ten Commandments-
www.aclu.org...
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
www.aclunebraska.org...
Nativity scenes and Christmas-
www.crossroad.to...
www.lc.org...
www.timesleader.com...
Prayer-
www.americanfreepress.net...
radio.foxnews.com...
aclu.procon.org...
Others-
www.caucusforamerica.com...
volokh.com...
www.truthtellers.org...

Probably because Christianity is the entrenched religion in the USA.

Entrenched? or Preferred?

reply to post by Hefficide


I don't think the OP is opposed to the use of the word 'bigot' sometimes. But often 'bigot' becomes a catch all for anyone who supports their own flag, culture, or country. Speak out against shariah law, you're a bigot. Speak out against flag burning, you're a fascist. Speak out against illegal immigration, you're a racist. Its not that bigots, fascists and racists don't exist, its that people misuse the terms all the time.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Neutral would be fine. But the ACLU who claim they are "Working in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend individual rights and liberties" are actually infringing on the rights and liberties of millions.

I think that displaying the ten commandments or the cross in courts and schools does count as an endorsement of religion. I have no problem with religious schools displaying such things, however, whether they be state-run or private. In fact, I went to one when I was younger (Bishop Ramsey CofE school in Ruislip, if you want to know) which was mostly state-run but which also received voluntary contributions from church members. However I feel that if you're going to start endorsing a religion in class, you should do so openly in your school mission statement etc. unless you're going to start putting all religious texts and symbols up there.

And they use the state and federal Government to do it by twisting and turning the First Amendment to mean something totally different than what it says.

Explain. From where I'm sat, your constitution is often very vague and can be interpreted in a variety of different ways - rather like the Bible, actually. How is one to know which interpretation is correct, given that the original authors died several hundred years ago and were hardly a homogenous group even then?

-Snip sources-

Thankyou.

Entrenched? or Preferred?

Both.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by fooks

 

Does the U.K. have the same rights as the U.S? Like the Separation of Church and State?

Separation of Church and State is not a right, nor is it any thing enumerated within the Bill of Rights of The Constitution for the United States of America. There is, within the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause which prohibits the federal government from establishing any religion, but it does not expressly forbid the federal government from acknowledging religion. The term "separation of church and state" comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist's Association regarding their plea he intervene with a squabble between they and the State of Connecticut, where the Baptist's were a minority and feared they would be forced out of that State.

Jefferson took great care in writing his letter wanting to both reassure the Danbury Baptists that they would not be forced out of the State by way of legislation, and at the same time to explain why he, nor Congress could intervene on their behalf due to the 1st Amendment. Here is that portion of the text from Jefferson's letter:

"...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."

No where in the Constitution is there any mention of a separation of church and state.

More importantly, The Bill of Rights are not rights granted to people, but rather certain enumerated rights being acknowledged as belonging to all people irrespective of their residence. The applicability, of course, is distinctly American, as those Bill of Rights function more as a prohibition on what the federal government can and cannot do, rather than an express declaration of rights. The 9th Amendment in particular makes perfectly clear that by enumerating certain rights that this does not in any way disparage other rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, which supports the contention that rights are not granted but simply just reside with the people.

As far as the Bill of Rights are concerned, all people have the same rights. Unfortunately the Bill of Rights only has weight within the United States, and what rights other countries acknowledge is a different story, but it is important to understand that separation of church and state, as such, is not a right, and the Establishment Clause is only a right in that the freedom to worship in the manner one sees fit is expressly protected, and that the federal government has no right to impose any form of religion on the people.

reply to post by Haydn_17


Far left, far right, either extreme is a bad thing and both need to be guarded against vigilantly. We must be sure to keep our political and religious ideologies from becoming radical and prevent the fringes from gaining power. That's the issue I see here in the USA, the voices of the moderates and centrists are drowned out by the far left and far right and thus we forget that we're all citizens of the same country and indeed the same planet... That's the issue with false dichotomies, they create only division.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry
Explain. From where I'm sat, your constitution is often very vague and can be interpreted in a variety of different ways - rather like the Bible, actually. How is one to know which interpretation is correct, given that the original authors died several hundred years ago and were hardly a homogenous group even then?

It is not vague and is very easy to interpret unless you are trying to "spin" or pervert it to MAKE it mean what you want it to. How can any one misinterpret the first amendment (prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances) Seems very straight forward to me.
Jean Paul Zodeaux seems much better at explaining it, as he did in a couple of post above this one. See www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Well put Jean Paul
second line............

Originally posted by Quadrivium
It is not vague and is very easy to interpret unless you are trying to "spin" or pervert it to MAKE it mean what you want it to.

It doesn't require spin for a person to read in the constitution a mirror of their own beliefs, at least on matters such as these.

How can any one misinterpret the first amendment (prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances)

The fact that we're having this conversation shows that people can interpret it in different ways. It all depends on what you see as 'respecting an establishment of religion' and how you believe it relates to 'free excercise', since there is certainly a large grey area between the two.

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

The fact that we're having this conversation shows that people can interpret it in different ways. It all depends on what you see as 'respecting an establishment of religion' and how you believe it relates to 'free excercise', since there is certainly a large grey area between the two.

You left out the most important part though, shall make no law . The fact that we are having this conversation shows that people spin the constitution to fit their beliefs.
I see no "grey area".
There should be free exercise, which the ACLU is trying to stop.
We are a Republic which is different from a full democracy, even so how could it be justifiable for an individual's rights and liberties to outweigh those of a majority?
Should a group of 1000 people have to give up their rights and liberties because what they believe might not be the belief of one person?
To go a little further into "separation of church and state" I will also add the following for your consideration. It is a little know fact that many who claim the faulty logic do not want to become common knowledge.
www.wallbuilders.com...

Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of the prominent individuals who attended services there.

And the man who penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor, Mr. Jefferson?

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.


Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: "It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall." 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson's attendance in spite of bad weather. 11



From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services.

These are just "snips" from the link above. Read the entire article, I think you will find it interesting.

We as Americans should also look to our history if we have questions concerning how to interpret the Constitution. I think that if we look at history we will see that these men had no intentions of keeping every aspect of religion out of government. No, what they wanted was to keep the church from becoming the state. Even with public prayer, nativity scenes, the cross and the Ten Commandments the church and state are still separate.
The Church is not the government and the government is not the church. The Bill of Rights prevents this but at the same time we have the right of "free exercise"
The Constitution of the United States is not a living document that changes as many claim. It means today exactly what it meant when it was penned, unless it is amended.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
You left out the most important part though, shall make no law . The fact that we are having this conversation shows that people spin the constitution to fit their beliefs.

Or see their own beliefs reflected in it. Again, one does not have to be a spin doctor to do such things.

There should be free exercise

Totally free excercise sounds like a bad idea to me.

We are a Republic which is different from a full democracy, even so how could it be justifiable for an individual's rights and liberties to outweigh those of a majority?

That depends entirely on

Should a group of 1000 people have to give up their rights and liberties because what they believe might not be the belief of one person?

In some cases, yes. Nobody's stopping them from believing, after all.

Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson's friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor.


Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: "It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson's] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall." 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson's attendance in spite of bad weather. 11



From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services.

These are just "snips" from the link above. Read the entire article, I think you will find it interesting.

We as Americans should also look to our history if we have questions concerning how to interpret the Constitution. I think that if we look at history we will see that these men had no intentions of keeping every aspect of religion out of government. No, what they wanted was to keep the church from becoming the state. Even with public prayer, nativity scenes, the cross and the Ten Commandments the church and state are still separate.
The Church is not the government and the government is not the church. The Bill of Rights prevents this but at the same time we have the right of "free exercise"
The Constitution of the United States is not a living document that changes as many claim. It means today exactly what it meant when it was penned, unless it is amended.

My apologies for the mistake then.

As an aside, why is it that so many Americans place such importance in their constitution?

reply to post by LeftWingLarry

As an aside, why is it that so many Americans place such importance in their constitution?

Because it is the Supreme Law of the Land and senior to all other forms of legislation. All subsequent legislation must conform to the Constitution in order to have the force and weight of actual law.

Or see their own beliefs reflected in it. Again, one does not have to be a spin doctor to do such things.

When we force our beliefs in something to change what it means that is spin

Totally free excercise sounds like a bad idea to me.

A bad idea? Compared to what?

That depends entirely on

yes?

In some cases, yes. Nobody's stopping them from believing, after all.

And no one is forcing the one believe, after all.

My apologies for the mistake then.

As an aside, why is it that so many Americans place such importance in their constitution?

Because Larry that is what makes us Americans.

I have started a new thread on the interpretation of the first Amendment to keep from derailing this thread. I doubt if many will reply but check it out when you get a chance. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Quadrivium
When we force our beliefs in something to change what it means that is spin

It's just a difference in interpretation. The same way a person can get 'legalise gay marriage' and 'God hates Fags!' from the Bible. It just depends on your own subconscious biases.

A bad idea? Compared to what?

Compared to various sensible restrictions. For example, claiming that it is your freedom of religion to stone an adultress = bad.

yes?

I have no idea, lost my train of thought entirely.

And no one is forcing the one believe, after all.

And yet, they are forced to take part in various religious ceremonies. This is the grey area I spoke of.

Because Larry that is what makes us Americans

But the US isn't the only nation to have a constitution... Even the UK has one, of sorts.

I have started a new thread on the interpretation of the first Amendment to keep from derailing this thread. I doubt if many will reply but check it out when you get a chance. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aye, I saw it. Very interesting, and you seem to have had more replies than you thought.