Gorsuch To The Rescue!

[PoliticalChic]

"I learned about American History wearing white gloves and thumbing through original correspondence."

There's your problem right there!
White gloves don't have any effect on comprehension.

The nation was founded by God fearing men following the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Our memorializing document were based largely on the Bible.

They were not deists.


Time for you to go back to a real school?

You study history by reading correspondence, news articles, and literature OF THE TIME. You don't google some lameass website and then regurgitate what someone hundreds of years removed from that history has to say.

If the nation was founded by "God fearing men following the Judeo-Christian tradition, why did they choose "E pluribus unum" as our national motto?

If our founding documents were largely based on the Bible why did Congress pass an act acknowledging the contributions of the Iroquois Confederacy. Why didn't they pass one acknowledging the Bible?

Text of H.Con.Res. 331 (100th): A concurrent resolution to acknowledge the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations ... (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

Look, if this nation was a bunch of holy rollers at it's founding why did we have a "Second Awakening" almost immediately thereafter? And honestly, that whole "In God We Trust" and "under God" stuff didn't show up until the end of the Third Awakening.

Throughout it's history the United States has seen religious enthusiasm wax and wane like the phases of the moon. But make no mistake, during the American Revolution the population of the United States religious fever was at an all time low.

I had better schooling than you did.

1. America was born of Judeo-Christian tradition.
2. Our founding documents were based on the Bible.
3. The signers were traditional Christians.
4. They were not deists.
5. As for the famous “separation of church and state,” the phrase appears in no federal document. In fact, at the time of ratification of the Constitution, ten of the thirteen colonies had some provision recognizing Christianity as either the official, or the recommended religion in their state constitutions.

a. From the 1790 Massachusetts Constitution, written by John Adams, includes: [the] good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend(s) upon piety, religion, and morality…by the institution of public worship of God and of the public instruction in piety, religion, and morality…”Massachusetts Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. North Carolina Constitution, article 32, 1776: “That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of either the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall b e capable of holding any office, or place of trust or profit, in the civil department, within this State.” Constitution of North Carolina, 1776


c. So, the Founders intention was to be sure that the federal government didn’t do the same, and mandate a national religion. And when Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, it was to reassure them the federal government could not interfere in their religious observations, i.e., there is “a wall of separation between church and state.” He wasn’t speaking of religion contaminating the government, but of the government contaminating religious observance.



Anything else you require remediation about???

LMAO. Nice job proving exactly what I am saying. You have used two quotes above, one from John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution and the other the North Carolina Constitution. You claim both support your position. Yet when viewed in context they do the exact opposite.

Like Adams, hell--I have already quoted the Massachusetts Constitution and John Adams in this very thread.

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Now you tell me, which "Christian" religion can I join where I can worship God in the manner and season most agreeable to ME?

And then North Carolina. Thanks for pitching right in to my wheelhouse.

So in your initial Adams post you didn't know what came before it. It didn't say that this nation was founded as a religious one. It merely stated that this Nation was structured in such a way that it could only govern a "moral people".

Now with North Carolina you post Article 32. But what about 31

That no clergyman, or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of being a member of either the Senate, House of Commons, or Council of State, while he continues in the exercise of the pastoral function.

Wow, a "religious" state BANNING active ministers from holding any office.

How about Article 19

That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Sounds like Adams and Massachusetts don't it?

But the real kicker is Article 34. And let this be a lesson to you. Never, ever, in an argument with a lefty, bring up the North Carolina Constitution. It is among the most liberal Constitution of any state in the nation.

That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any pretence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, or has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship:--Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment

"Now you tell me, which "Christian" religion can I join where I can worship God in the manner and season most agreeable to ME?"

Why?

The question wasn't which iteration existed....multiple ones did....the question was whether the nation was founded based on Christianity.

And...as you inadvertently admit.....it was.


Now....If you'd like me to teach you the outcome, how and why, this led to the first amendment....just ask.

"Why?" must be your version of putting fingers in your ears and going LA LA LA.

You have nothing. You got nothing. You are a total waste of time and bandwidth.

I notice you're no longer claiming that the Founders were deists.

Where did you learn the truth?

Oh....from lil' ol' moi.



Soooo....where's the 'thank you'????

 

[Penelope]

You would think he would be embarrassed for them to have to nuke him in. Some people do not care how they win, look at Trump!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You would think he would be embarrassed for them to have to nuke him in. Some people do not care how they win, look at Trump!!

1. Democrats originated the nuclear option. Did I miss the post where you castigated them???

2. The snake, Obama, actually told illegal aliens to go and vote, and promised them that there'd be no investigation to follow. Did I miss the post where you were outraged that Democrats do that sort of thing?

3. In short, you've revealed yourself to be no more than a boilerplate Leftists suck-up.
True?

 

[PoliticalChic]

".... and a long history of fidelity to the written law, even when the text leads to conclusions with which he personally disagrees.

.... it will be difficult for Democrats to derail the nomination. That is bracing news for those who hope to see a restoration of constitutional checks and balances.

National Review’s Ed Whelan describes Gorsuch as “a brilliant jurist and dedicated originalist and textualist.” Among other things, that means that he strives to interpret the provisions of the Constitution as they would have been understood by those who ratified them. In a case last year, Gorsuch observed that the Constitution “isn’t some inkblot on which litigants may project their hopes and dreams . . . but a carefully drafted text judges are charged with applying according to its original public meaning.”
A Great Start

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is a major reason that so many of us, real Americans, i.e., those imbued with the religious views of our Founders, see Gorsuch as.....to use an Obama phrase..."the one we've been waiting for."


"...Gorsuch’s opinion in Yellowbear v. Lampert as a great piece of legal writing. Here is the beginning of the opinion:

'Andrew Yellowbear will probably spend the rest of his life in prison. Time he must serve for murdering his daughter. With that much lying behind and still before him, Mr. Yellowbear has found sustenance in his faith. No one doubts the sincerity of his religious beliefs or that they are the reason he seeks access to his prison’s sweat lodge—a house of prayer and meditation the prison has supplied for those who share his Native American religious tradition.

Yet the prison refuses to open the doors of that sweat lodge to Mr. Yellowbear alone, and so we have this litigation. While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them—at least in the absence of a compelling reason.'

That’s a wonderful opening, clear and lucid, as accessible to a layman to lawyer. Gorsuch went on rule for Yellowbear under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a statute protecting the ability of inmates to exercise their faith "
A Great Legal Pen




Is that Scalia I hear applauding???