What idiotic thing will she say next?????

#26
#26
joevol320 said:
ruling was an over reaching by an humanist/activist judge. by your rationale, a Christian could never run for office or be a judge. this was not the intent of our founding fathers.
Click to expand...

what ruling? The sep of church and state phrase comes from one of the main authors of the document
 
#33
#33
Simply stated, the 1st Amendment does not say nor establish the type of "separation of church and state" that progressives have injected into "common knowledge" over the past 100 years.

The establishment clause does not prohibit all religious expression in gov't much less the public. If it has any bearing on education (which was the context of the question, right?) then it would amount to a prohibition of Federal involvement in education since Congress can make no law "respecting an establishment of religion". You cannot design a curriculum relevant to America and its history without making a call on how to or whether to discuss religion.
 
#34
#34
sjt18 said:
Simply stated, the 1st Amendment does not say nor establish the type of "separation of church and state" that progressives have injected into "common knowledge" over the past 100 years.
Click to expand...

Jefferson was a progressive from the last 100 yrs?
 
#35
#35
I think he means the Warren Court and since then in the whole argument of prayer in school, etc.
 
#36
#36
utvolpj said:
Jefferson was a progressive from the last 100 yrs?
Click to expand...

Have you read the LETTER his quote came from? It had NOTHING to do with graduation speeches or whether creationism should be taught in publicly funded schools. In fact, the Bible was a primary school text for much of the first 150 years after the USC was adopted.

His letter was NOT a legal opinion. As commonly understood today, it was NOT the legal opinions of the courts of that time.

It is noteworthy that Jefferson attended a Baptist Church service held IN THE CAPITAL building during the time this letter was written.

Moreover, in Jefferson's time, religion was accepted as the governing force in the "country". They didn't think the Federal gov't could or should tell people what to do on matters like... caring for the elderly, distributing to the poor, educating children, etc.
 
#37
#37
CSpindizzy said:
I think he means the Warren Court and since then in the whole argument of prayer in school, etc.
Click to expand...

No. I mean the conception of what is meant by the term "wall of separation between Church and State". His message was that gov't should not have undue influence over religion not that religious ideals should not inform the political opinions of the people or that religious practice should be limited from the public square.

When that was written, religion was by far and away a more significant influence on the American people than politicians or gov't. Religion in education was the accepted paradigm... gov't in education or religion was not.
 
#40
#40
sjt18 said:
Have you read the LETTER his quote came from? It had NOTHING to do with graduation speeches or whether creationism should be taught in publicly funded schools. In fact, the Bible was a primary school text for much of the first 150 years after the USC was adopted.

His letter was NOT a legal opinion. As commonly understood today, it was NOT the legal opinions of the courts of that time.

It is noteworthy that Jefferson attended a Baptist Church service held IN THE CAPITAL building during the time this letter was written.

Moreover, in Jefferson's time, religion was accepted as the governing force in the "country". They didn't think the Federal gov't could or should tell people what to do on matters like... caring for the elderly, distributing to the poor, educating children, etc.
Click to expand...

yes I've read the letter and know it wasn't a legal opinion. It was however the opinion of one of the best Constitutional experts you will ever find.

Also DC was not quite the city it is now so I bet that had something to do with the religious services.

Have you read Jefferson's bible?
 
#41
#41
This is one of those debates that fundamentally is about whether you want to interpret the Constitution literally or whether you want to interpret it so as to glean the principles to then apply to today's world.

If you want to embed Chirstianity in the public schools and are intolerant of other religions, especially these days anything Islamic, then you will tout the line of thinking that the First Amendment allowed religion in schools. You do this because you know that the practical effect of such a rule would be for Christianity to simply drown out everything else.

Notwithstanding the fact that the amendment was designed to safeguard against that very thing, i.e. that the majority's religion, or the religion favored at the moment by those in power, would (even subtly) take on the force of the state.

Rational people, however, realize that this is but a snapshot in time and that we are not wise enough to proclaim the right religious tenor or degree in government, for example, the schools, and so advocate adherence to the principle itself.

Your theory is suited purely to advance your personal and secular agenda. It is fundamentally wrong and insults the Constitution and the freedoms of this country.

My theory is loyal to the very groundings of our democracy.

You suck. I rule.
 
#42
#42
Jefferson was not a big fan of the Constitution itself. He was one of several anti-Federalists who pushed for the Bill of Rights as the only way the Constitution would be ratified.
 
#43
#43
which just shows politics has never really changed in the US. Compromises have to happen all the time
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
This is one of those debates that fundamentally is about whether you want to interpret the Constitution literally or whether you want to interpret it so as to glean the principles to then apply to today's world.

If you want to embed Chirstianity in the public schools and are intolerant of other religions, especially these days anything Islamic, then you will tout the line of thinking that the First Amendment allowed religion in schools. You do this because you know that the practical effect of such a rule would be for Christianity to simply drown out everything else.

Notwithstanding the fact that the amendment was designed to safeguard against that very thing, i.e. that the majority's religion, or the religion favored at the moment by those in power, would (even subtly) take on the force of the state.

Rational people, however, realize that this is but a snapshot in time and that we are not wise enough to proclaim the right religious tenor or degree in government, for example, the schools, and so advocate adherence to the principle itself.

Your theory is suited purely to advance your personal and secular agenda. It is fundamentally wrong and insults the Constitution and the freedoms of this country.

My theory is loyal to the very groundings of our democracy.

You suck. I rule.
Click to expand...

Thank you....son of a liberal judge.
 
#45
#45
gsvol, after posting a series of cartoons and pics demonizing democrats, what was the picture of Sarah Palin looking through a 2x scope mounted on an assualt rifle supposed to mean?
 
#46
#46
The only reason that Christians fight to keep other religions out of the schools is..........come LG........you can figure that one out.....come on.......
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
This is one of those debates that fundamentally is about whether you want to interpret the Constitution literally or whether you want to interpret it so as to glean the principles to then apply to today's world.

If you want to embed Chirstianity in the public schools and are intolerant of other religions, especially these days anything Islamic, then you will tout the line of thinking that the First Amendment allowed religion in schools. You do this because you know that the practical effect of such a rule would be for Christianity to simply drown out everything else.

Notwithstanding the fact that the amendment was designed to safeguard against that very thing, i.e. that the majority's religion, or the religion favored at the moment by those in power, would (even subtly) take on the force of the state.

Rational people, however, realize that this is but a snapshot in time and that we are not wise enough to proclaim the right religious tenor or degree in government, for example, the schools, and so advocate adherence to the principle itself.

Your theory is suited purely to advance your personal and secular agenda. It is fundamentally wrong and insults the Constitution and the freedoms of this country.

My theory is loyal to the very groundings of our democracy.

You suck. I rule.
Click to expand...

The irrationality goes both ways. I find it hard to believe the framers would consider a cross in an Arizonan cemetery housing war dead as violating the first amendment nor would they consider a nativity display or Christmas tree in a classroom or post office as a violation.
 
#48
#48
IPorange said:
gsvol, after posting a series of cartoons and pics demonizing democrats, what was the picture of Sarah Palin looking through a 2x scope mounted on an assualt rifle supposed to mean?
Click to expand...

that she can see Russia
 
#49
#49
volinbham said:
The irrationality goes both ways. I find it hard to believe the framers would consider a cross in an Arizonan cemetery housing war dead as violating the first amendment nor would they consider a nativity display or Christmas tree in a classroom or post office as a violation.
Click to expand...

agreed. we need to make it about degrees. this all or nothing garbage is when we run into trouble.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
The irrationality goes both ways. I find it hard to believe the framers would consider a cross in an Arizonan cemetery housing war dead as violating the first amendment nor would they consider a nativity display or Christmas tree in a classroom or post office as a violation.
Click to expand...

droski said:
agreed. we need to make it about degrees. this all or nothing garbage is when we run into trouble.
Click to expand...


While I do not in practice disagree with you that a cross in a cemetery is far less obnoxious than a Bible lesson in PS 135, I think history has shown that you cannot trust the government decisionmakers on this issue to come up with a sensible distinction.

I mean, look at the credentials of the people who get motivated enough by this issue to run for local office so as to influence the outcome. Its the Bible thumpers who want to call the shots and, as we see in this thread, they don't have the intellectual horsepower to see the forest for the trees on this issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top