Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 12
- 51
Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional
(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)
If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally
We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.
Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.
So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.
If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.
I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.
I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.
Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.Emily,
I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.
G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.
As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.
The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.
I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.
The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.
This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.
All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.
Emily,
The states had state sponsored religions into the eighteenth century. No religion was imposed on anyone. The advantage was receiving tax money from the state. All the states had different religions. There was no constitutional basis against what the states were doing. It is the same as the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, and the reconstruction Congress' approving the state's anti-miscegenation laws. If the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment meant what activist courts have created that they meant, there would be no reason for the amendments because they could have just sued. They did not sue because the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses were only applicable for judicial proceedings.