I Have A Question For Republicans

[sealybobo]

How the Supreme Court has interpreted the document has probably more to do with how we move about the Constitution. Each Party, actually each citizen is free to express to the court their concerns on how the document should be interpreted to protect their own varied interests. That's what makes the document so dynamic and interesting.

Charming for sure, but 100% inaccurate (not to mention slightly desperate at your desire to avoid having to admit you can't provide even a single instance of conservatives "moving right" of the U.S. Constitution). First of all, it is illegal to "interpret" the document. The U.S. Constitution is the law (and the highest law in the land as established by the Supremacy Clause). A law which is "open to interpretation" is a law that cannot be adhered to. The speed limit in your neighborhood is the law. If you interpret 25mph to mean "anything up to 40mph" while an officer interprets it to mean "anything above 24mph" - you'll never be able to be compliant with that speed limit. Especially if yet another officer on that department interprets the speed limit a third way (say...impermissible to be at even 24mph or 26mph).

The U.S. Constitution is not "dynamic" (another silly liberal talking point). It is set in stone, says exactly what it says, and stays that way until such time as it is amended. At which time, that new version becomes the new law set in stone.

Absolutists make me laugh. Let me guess, you think the world was literally created in six days.

God's days and our days are not the same---------------"In the beginning God created heaven and earth". Our days are measured by the time it takes our planet to make one revolution on its axis. God's days are not measured by anything we can comprehend.

But it makes no sense. Modern man's been around for only 40,000 years. Let's say apes have been around for 1 million years. Before us dinosaurs ruled for millions of years. And for millions of years before dinosaurs trilobites. Now our earth formed a few billion years ago. We formed from stars that burned out billions of years before our sun was even born.

What this tells me is we weren't intended or planned by a God who made this for us. If so what were dinosaurs and trilobites for? What was the purpose? We just happen to be top of the food chain and smart enough to wonder. But that makes us superstitious.

Time would be different for a God who lives forever true but that's not the point. The point is if you see what new comers we are its obvious the universe did fine before us and will be OK after were gone.

What's the purpose? None

 

[Conservative65]

Clinton never left a surplus....end of thread.

Bush said he did

He used it as a justification to slash taxes

If bush had what Clinton had and Obama blew it, you know they'd be referring to it as the bush surplus.

And they make excuses for why bush lost the surplus. One being two wars but they forget they lied us into one of them

Are those Democrats that said the same thing Bush did about Iraq and said so BEFORE Bush was President liars?

 

[80zephyr]

How can we "not forget" something that never happened? I've read the U.S. Constitution top to bottom hundreds of times and never once have I seen "separation of church and state". You can't let liberal propaganda overcome you like that. Do some research. Read the U.S. Constitution. The only thing the founders were concerned about was the state deciding and/or creating a national religion. Never once were they concerned about the people bringing religion into government.

It certainly was what the Founders intended

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison

“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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

And the way the document has been interpreted since.

Then why, after the constitution was ratified, did each state have its official religion? Wouldn't the new nation founded on the beliefs you espouse have outlawed such a practice?

I agree with another poster. You are a product of the liberal educational system. What you have been taught is CLEARLY not what is in the historical records.

As to the bolded, this is NOT how the left views it.

Mark

Wrong again Mark, I am a student of history. I love piecing the smallest nuances and discovering new things that reveal the past. You are a product of religion that wants to latch on to the Constitution for more power and to change the document to reflect what your church or religion wants it to say.
Sandra Day O'Connor the Supreme Court Judge once wrote: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly"

If you are a student of history, then you must KNOW that "God" has been a part of our historical makeup since day one, and that our government took part in that makeup.

Throughout our history(until 1962) school prayer and bible reading was part of school curriculum.

The evidence for religion in government is in fact utterly overwhelming.

So, O'Connor was wrong. Our system(before the liberals changed it) served us very well. It was after the change that the moral fiber of the country hit the skids.

As for myself, I am not paticularly religious, and don't go to church. However, I do not lie to myself to view history. I take it for what it was, not what I want it to be.

No better way to learn history than to read a first person account o that history:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

Alexis de Tocqueville



Mark

First Mark, you are wrong about prayer and bible reading always being a part of school. Horace Mann, the father of public schools in the U.S. was a champion for the elimination of influence of religion and accomplished that pretty much by the 1840's. Catholics and other religions were successful from pressing the matter legally because they didn't like the Protestant religion from exerting influence on their children.

Massachusetts was the only state that required bible reading and it died sometime in the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt said "It is not our business to have the Protestant bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools." Clearly, the move was toward education and away from any religious influence.

Edit to add: Alexis de Tocqueville was not a Founder, he wasn't even born until 1805 and the treatise you offered wasn't written until 1835, well after the Revolution.

No, I am not wrong about prayer in schools. It was widespread until 1962.

School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to my link, school prayer was common in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

As far as Tocqueville is concerned, I know he wasn't a founder, but his writings reflected how early Americans actually lived compared to what the left would want us to believe today.

What you were taught did not happen.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You didn't source your claim so I have no way to know what date that was published. That said, California is back on an economic roll, higher taxes, higher wages, and a fully integrated system of business regulation have allowed California to remain the sixth most dynamic business engine in the world. The debt is being retired and unemployment has hit a new low. Life is good in the Golden state.

If life is so good in the "Golden State", why are people and corporations leaving?

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

It certainly was what the Founders intended

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
~James Madison

“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 prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

And the way the document has been interpreted since.

Then why, after the constitution was ratified, did each state have its official religion? Wouldn't the new nation founded on the beliefs you espouse have outlawed such a practice?

I agree with another poster. You are a product of the liberal educational system. What you have been taught is CLEARLY not what is in the historical records.

As to the bolded, this is NOT how the left views it.

Mark

Wrong again Mark, I am a student of history. I love piecing the smallest nuances and discovering new things that reveal the past. You are a product of religion that wants to latch on to the Constitution for more power and to change the document to reflect what your church or religion wants it to say.
Sandra Day O'Connor the Supreme Court Judge once wrote: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly"

If you are a student of history, then you must KNOW that "God" has been a part of our historical makeup since day one, and that our government took part in that makeup.

Throughout our history(until 1962) school prayer and bible reading was part of school curriculum.

The evidence for religion in government is in fact utterly overwhelming.

So, O'Connor was wrong. Our system(before the liberals changed it) served us very well. It was after the change that the moral fiber of the country hit the skids.

As for myself, I am not paticularly religious, and don't go to church. However, I do not lie to myself to view history. I take it for what it was, not what I want it to be.

No better way to learn history than to read a first person account o that history:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

Alexis de Tocqueville



Mark

First Mark, you are wrong about prayer and bible reading always being a part of school. Horace Mann, the father of public schools in the U.S. was a champion for the elimination of influence of religion and accomplished that pretty much by the 1840's. Catholics and other religions were successful from pressing the matter legally because they didn't like the Protestant religion from exerting influence on their children.

Massachusetts was the only state that required bible reading and it died sometime in the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt said "It is not our business to have the Protestant bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools." Clearly, the move was toward education and away from any religious influence.

Edit to add: Alexis de Tocqueville was not a Founder, he wasn't even born until 1805 and the treatise you offered wasn't written until 1835, well after the Revolution.

No, I am not wrong about prayer in schools. It was widespread until 1962.

School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to my link, school prayer was common in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

As far as Tocqueville is concerned, I know he wasn't a founder, but his writings reflected how early Americans actually lived compared to what the left would want us to believe today.

What you were taught did not happen.

Mark

You're wrong Mark, as I indicated Horace Mann did much to eliminate the practice by the 1840's, Later, Catholics and other religions, brought lawsuits against prayer in public schools and won that case in 1890 in Wisconsin, based on the constitutional dictate that there be no establishment of religion. Prayer existed in some counties and it was prevalent in this country but I would not call it widespread. The Supreme Court was finally brought into it when a Jew saw his school age son praying "Christian style' and brought a suit. Over time, the practice was brought to an end through legal action.

Alexis de Tocqueville was French historian, his opinion of what the Founders intended almost 60 years after the Revolution is like me writing about my opinion of World War II. It will be researched and thoughtful, but will pale in comparison to the letters and words of people who actually fought the war and won.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

You didn't source your claim so I have no way to know what date that was published. That said, California is back on an economic roll, higher taxes, higher wages, and a fully integrated system of business regulation have allowed California to remain the sixth most dynamic business engine in the world. The debt is being retired and unemployment has hit a new low. Life is good in the Golden state.

If life is so good in the "Golden State", why are people and corporations leaving?

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

Mark, California has a GDP greater than Texas by 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The economic powerhouse is on the west coast, not on the Gulf coast. We are still the 6th greatest economic powerhouse in the world.

 

[JoeNormal]

Please point me to examples of those experiments to prove they are worthy of replacing government health, where are they?

We're not. But according to you liberals - your hearts bleed around the clock for those so less fortunate. If that's the case, you liberals are worthy. Something tells me many of you are paralyzed with fear that this would prove you're not as worthy and you don't care as much as you'd like people to believe.

I will not paint all Democrats the same, just as I would not paint all Republicans with the same brush. It is the true believer that slows progress and keeps the parties from negotiating like they once did. America is great because our ancestors weren't afraid to talk and negotiate, and hammer out compromises. These days it is something that will get you removed from the building, and labeled a traitor. It isn't the Democrats afraid to come to the table and frankly that is something you're going to have to come to terms with.

Why would Democrats be afraid to come to the table? They have been winning for years. They have welfare, social security, food stamps, Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage, and on and on and on.

You know why they got all those things? Because conservatives negotiated with them. For decades. Tell me, what have conservatives got in return? Where did the left EVER say, "enough is enough"?

Never.

Conservatives have learned that it is impossible to negotiate with the left. They keep getting what they want, and we keep getting the shaft.

And finally, when a non PC guy like Trump tells the truth, the left has protests against him, and he's not even president yet.

If I were a lefty, I'd be damn happy I got away with this as long as they did.

Hopefully, ITS THEIR TURN TO NEGOTIATE.

Mark

When did Republicans get anything in return? Holy shit, have you not noticed to what extent the corporations control everything these days? Climb out of your bunker every once in a while. You might be surprised by what you see.

Money controls everything. anyone who denies that is a fool.

You sounded religious in the previous post. What would Jesus think about that?

 

[P@triot]

You sounded religious in the previous post. What would Jesus think about that?

He would think Red was doing the right thing by not bearing false witness.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

We have confirmed what I already thought, that is, it doesn't matter until it does matter, and nobody knows when that will happen.

I agree. But what we both should b able to agree on, is that the mounting debt makes it more likely that that day will happen.

Mark

Yep, it will happen, but folks have been predicting it for decades, and so far nobody has been right.

During our last depression, the government had the resources to help the people. If the next depression is caused by government insolvency, do you have any idea what will happen to the American people?

Do you really want to take that chance?

We have had 13 major recessions/depressions since our nation began, so predicting for decades is no big deal.

Mark

Government insolvency? You mean like Greece? We are a long way from that. Despite all our troubles, the US economy is still the gold standard, and thus the greenback is still the reserve currency. Which means the government can borrow as much money as they want from the federal reserve. Yes, rates will go up, but US T - Bills will be the safest bet for a long time.

Are we that far removed from the Great Depression that you believe it won't happen here? History is littered with states that believed the same thing you do, with catastrophic results.

In the 1960's, it would have been impossible to imagine the credit rating for our nation being downgraded. And now its happening.

Wake up!!

Mark

what the hell are talking about? Believe the same thing I do? You mean that the greenback is the reserve currency, and therefore we are a long way from government insolvency like Greece? I have no doubt we can have a depression, it's just silly to think our government insolvency will cause the next US economic depression.

 

[JoeNormal]

You sounded religious in the previous post. What would Jesus think about that?

He would think Red was doing the right thing by not bearing false witness.

Ha! And he thanks you for providing him an 'out'. I wish I could say that he's the first religious person I've met that keeps their hypocracy neatly compartmentalized but he's not.

 

[80zephyr]

Then why, after the constitution was ratified, did each state have its official religion? Wouldn't the new nation founded on the beliefs you espouse have outlawed such a practice?

I agree with another poster. You are a product of the liberal educational system. What you have been taught is CLEARLY not what is in the historical records.

As to the bolded, this is NOT how the left views it.

Mark

Wrong again Mark, I am a student of history. I love piecing the smallest nuances and discovering new things that reveal the past. You are a product of religion that wants to latch on to the Constitution for more power and to change the document to reflect what your church or religion wants it to say.
Sandra Day O'Connor the Supreme Court Judge once wrote: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly"

If you are a student of history, then you must KNOW that "God" has been a part of our historical makeup since day one, and that our government took part in that makeup.

Throughout our history(until 1962) school prayer and bible reading was part of school curriculum.

The evidence for religion in government is in fact utterly overwhelming.

So, O'Connor was wrong. Our system(before the liberals changed it) served us very well. It was after the change that the moral fiber of the country hit the skids.

As for myself, I am not paticularly religious, and don't go to church. However, I do not lie to myself to view history. I take it for what it was, not what I want it to be.

No better way to learn history than to read a first person account o that history:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

Alexis de Tocqueville



Mark

First Mark, you are wrong about prayer and bible reading always being a part of school. Horace Mann, the father of public schools in the U.S. was a champion for the elimination of influence of religion and accomplished that pretty much by the 1840's. Catholics and other religions were successful from pressing the matter legally because they didn't like the Protestant religion from exerting influence on their children.

Massachusetts was the only state that required bible reading and it died sometime in the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt said "It is not our business to have the Protestant bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools." Clearly, the move was toward education and away from any religious influence.

Edit to add: Alexis de Tocqueville was not a Founder, he wasn't even born until 1805 and the treatise you offered wasn't written until 1835, well after the Revolution.

No, I am not wrong about prayer in schools. It was widespread until 1962.

School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to my link, school prayer was common in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

As far as Tocqueville is concerned, I know he wasn't a founder, but his writings reflected how early Americans actually lived compared to what the left would want us to believe today.

What you were taught did not happen.

Mark

You're wrong Mark, as I indicated Horace Mann did much to eliminate the practice by the 1840's, Later, Catholics and other religions, brought lawsuits against prayer in public schools and won that case in 1890 in Wisconsin, based on the constitutional dictate that there be no establishment of religion. Prayer existed in some counties and it was prevalent in this country but I would not call it widespread. The Supreme Court was finally brought into it when a Jew saw his school age son praying "Christian style' and brought a suit. Over time, the practice was brought to an end through legal action.

Alexis de Tocqueville was French historian, his opinion of what the Founders intended almost 60 years after the Revolution is like me writing about my opinion of World War II. It will be researched and thoughtful, but will pale in comparison to the letters and words of people who actually fought the war and won.

I have shown you links to provide proof of what I stated. I stand behind them.

As for de Tocqueville, you seem to be missing the point. He visited an America STEEPED in religion, and he reported what he found. He made no statement of what the founders intended, only reporting on the reality of American life.

And since he found America that way, we can logically assume that what you believe what America was like, and what it truly was are in disagreement.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

You didn't source your claim so I have no way to know what date that was published. That said, California is back on an economic roll, higher taxes, higher wages, and a fully integrated system of business regulation have allowed California to remain the sixth most dynamic business engine in the world. The debt is being retired and unemployment has hit a new low. Life is good in the Golden state.

If life is so good in the "Golden State", why are people and corporations leaving?

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

Mark, California has a GDP greater than Texas by 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The economic powerhouse is on the west coast, not on the Gulf coast. We are still the 6th greatest economic powerhouse in the world.

And you have 13 million more people. After comparing GDP on a per person basis, Texas has a 56,334 GDP per person while California has a 50,489 GDP per person.

Here are the facts. California is crumbling while Texas is growing. My links again show what you believe is in error.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

We're not. But according to you liberals - your hearts bleed around the clock for those so less fortunate. If that's the case, you liberals are worthy. Something tells me many of you are paralyzed with fear that this would prove you're not as worthy and you don't care as much as you'd like people to believe.

I will not paint all Democrats the same, just as I would not paint all Republicans with the same brush. It is the true believer that slows progress and keeps the parties from negotiating like they once did. America is great because our ancestors weren't afraid to talk and negotiate, and hammer out compromises. These days it is something that will get you removed from the building, and labeled a traitor. It isn't the Democrats afraid to come to the table and frankly that is something you're going to have to come to terms with.

Why would Democrats be afraid to come to the table? They have been winning for years. They have welfare, social security, food stamps, Obamacare, abortion, gay marriage, and on and on and on.

You know why they got all those things? Because conservatives negotiated with them. For decades. Tell me, what have conservatives got in return? Where did the left EVER say, "enough is enough"?

Never.

Conservatives have learned that it is impossible to negotiate with the left. They keep getting what they want, and we keep getting the shaft.

And finally, when a non PC guy like Trump tells the truth, the left has protests against him, and he's not even president yet.

If I were a lefty, I'd be damn happy I got away with this as long as they did.

Hopefully, ITS THEIR TURN TO NEGOTIATE.

Mark

When did Republicans get anything in return? Holy shit, have you not noticed to what extent the corporations control everything these days? Climb out of your bunker every once in a while. You might be surprised by what you see.

Money controls everything. anyone who denies that is a fool.

You sounded religious in the previous post. What would Jesus think about that?

If that is directed at me, I would need to know why you think that? The reality of history is crystal clear. Acknowledging religion in America is simply the truth.

Mark

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Wrong again Mark, I am a student of history. I love piecing the smallest nuances and discovering new things that reveal the past. You are a product of religion that wants to latch on to the Constitution for more power and to change the document to reflect what your church or religion wants it to say.
Sandra Day O'Connor the Supreme Court Judge once wrote: "Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly"

If you are a student of history, then you must KNOW that "God" has been a part of our historical makeup since day one, and that our government took part in that makeup.

Throughout our history(until 1962) school prayer and bible reading was part of school curriculum.

The evidence for religion in government is in fact utterly overwhelming.

So, O'Connor was wrong. Our system(before the liberals changed it) served us very well. It was after the change that the moral fiber of the country hit the skids.

As for myself, I am not paticularly religious, and don't go to church. However, I do not lie to myself to view history. I take it for what it was, not what I want it to be.

No better way to learn history than to read a first person account o that history:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

Alexis de Tocqueville



Mark

First Mark, you are wrong about prayer and bible reading always being a part of school. Horace Mann, the father of public schools in the U.S. was a champion for the elimination of influence of religion and accomplished that pretty much by the 1840's. Catholics and other religions were successful from pressing the matter legally because they didn't like the Protestant religion from exerting influence on their children.

Massachusetts was the only state that required bible reading and it died sometime in the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt said "It is not our business to have the Protestant bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools." Clearly, the move was toward education and away from any religious influence.

Edit to add: Alexis de Tocqueville was not a Founder, he wasn't even born until 1805 and the treatise you offered wasn't written until 1835, well after the Revolution.

No, I am not wrong about prayer in schools. It was widespread until 1962.

School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to my link, school prayer was common in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

As far as Tocqueville is concerned, I know he wasn't a founder, but his writings reflected how early Americans actually lived compared to what the left would want us to believe today.

What you were taught did not happen.

Mark

You're wrong Mark, as I indicated Horace Mann did much to eliminate the practice by the 1840's, Later, Catholics and other religions, brought lawsuits against prayer in public schools and won that case in 1890 in Wisconsin, based on the constitutional dictate that there be no establishment of religion. Prayer existed in some counties and it was prevalent in this country but I would not call it widespread. The Supreme Court was finally brought into it when a Jew saw his school age son praying "Christian style' and brought a suit. Over time, the practice was brought to an end through legal action.

Alexis de Tocqueville was French historian, his opinion of what the Founders intended almost 60 years after the Revolution is like me writing about my opinion of World War II. It will be researched and thoughtful, but will pale in comparison to the letters and words of people who actually fought the war and won.

I have shown you links to provide proof of what I stated. I stand behind them.

As for de Tocqueville, you seem to be missing the point. He visited an America STEEPED in religion, and he reported what he found. He made no statement of what the founders intended, only reporting on the reality of American life.

And since he found America that way, we can logically assume that what you believe what America was like, and what it truly was are in disagreement.

Mark

Mark, you fail to note if you looked up Horace Mann, or any of the other things that I presented to counter your argument. Are you standing by your links are are you examining the other side of the discussion to see a different version of the truth?

The Founders made clear their intent, I think it's great that America is steeped in religion, but the Founders were clear about a separation of church and state. It is a policy that has worked well in America can you imagine the Catholic Church already the dominant religion, having an opportunity to put forth their personal stamp on children? What about Jews? I think we are well served without that fight, your opinion only lasts as long as your power, then it will be someone else putting their partisan showcase out to look over.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

You didn't source your claim so I have no way to know what date that was published. That said, California is back on an economic roll, higher taxes, higher wages, and a fully integrated system of business regulation have allowed California to remain the sixth most dynamic business engine in the world. The debt is being retired and unemployment has hit a new low. Life is good in the Golden state.

If life is so good in the "Golden State", why are people and corporations leaving?

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

Mark, California has a GDP greater than Texas by 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The economic powerhouse is on the west coast, not on the Gulf coast. We are still the 6th greatest economic powerhouse in the world.

And you have 13 million more people. After comparing GDP on a per person basis, Texas has a 56,334 GDP per person while California has a 50,489 GDP per person.

Here are the facts. California is crumbling while Texas is growing. My links again show what you believe is in error.

Mark

Well in twenty years when Texas gets to the same size you might have something. Until then, you don't have a thing that competes.

 

[80zephyr]

I agree. But what we both should b able to agree on, is that the mounting debt makes it more likely that that day will happen.

Mark

Yep, it will happen, but folks have been predicting it for decades, and so far nobody has been right.

During our last depression, the government had the resources to help the people. If the next depression is caused by government insolvency, do you have any idea what will happen to the American people?

Do you really want to take that chance?

We have had 13 major recessions/depressions since our nation began, so predicting for decades is no big deal.

Mark

Government insolvency? You mean like Greece? We are a long way from that. Despite all our troubles, the US economy is still the gold standard, and thus the greenback is still the reserve currency. Which means the government can borrow as much money as they want from the federal reserve. Yes, rates will go up, but US T - Bills will be the safest bet for a long time.

Are we that far removed from the Great Depression that you believe it won't happen here? History is littered with states that believed the same thing you do, with catastrophic results.

In the 1960's, it would have been impossible to imagine the credit rating for our nation being downgraded. And now its happening.

Wake up!!

Mark

what the hell are talking about? Believe the same thing I do? You mean that the greenback is the reserve currency, and therefore we are a long way from government insolvency like Greece? I have no doubt we can have a depression, it's just silly to think our government insolvency will cause the next US economic depression.

If we have a depression, who will believe in the stability of the US dollar?

Many countries are already moving away from the greenback as the reserve currency. Foreign nations closely monitored the monetary policy of the United States in order to ensure that the value of their reserves is not adversely affected by inflation.

During Obamas 8 year term, our debt will have roughly doubled. How long do you think that others will still view the US dollar as "good as gold"?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If you are a student of history, then you must KNOW that "God" has been a part of our historical makeup since day one, and that our government took part in that makeup.

Throughout our history(until 1962) school prayer and bible reading was part of school curriculum.

The evidence for religion in government is in fact utterly overwhelming.

So, O'Connor was wrong. Our system(before the liberals changed it) served us very well. It was after the change that the moral fiber of the country hit the skids.

As for myself, I am not paticularly religious, and don't go to church. However, I do not lie to myself to view history. I take it for what it was, not what I want it to be.

No better way to learn history than to read a first person account o that history:

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

Alexis de Tocqueville



Mark

First Mark, you are wrong about prayer and bible reading always being a part of school. Horace Mann, the father of public schools in the U.S. was a champion for the elimination of influence of religion and accomplished that pretty much by the 1840's. Catholics and other religions were successful from pressing the matter legally because they didn't like the Protestant religion from exerting influence on their children.

Massachusetts was the only state that required bible reading and it died sometime in the 20th century. Theodore Roosevelt said "It is not our business to have the Protestant bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools." Clearly, the move was toward education and away from any religious influence.

Edit to add: Alexis de Tocqueville was not a Founder, he wasn't even born until 1805 and the treatise you offered wasn't written until 1835, well after the Revolution.

No, I am not wrong about prayer in schools. It was widespread until 1962.

School prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to my link, school prayer was common in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.

As far as Tocqueville is concerned, I know he wasn't a founder, but his writings reflected how early Americans actually lived compared to what the left would want us to believe today.

What you were taught did not happen.

Mark

You're wrong Mark, as I indicated Horace Mann did much to eliminate the practice by the 1840's, Later, Catholics and other religions, brought lawsuits against prayer in public schools and won that case in 1890 in Wisconsin, based on the constitutional dictate that there be no establishment of religion. Prayer existed in some counties and it was prevalent in this country but I would not call it widespread. The Supreme Court was finally brought into it when a Jew saw his school age son praying "Christian style' and brought a suit. Over time, the practice was brought to an end through legal action.

Alexis de Tocqueville was French historian, his opinion of what the Founders intended almost 60 years after the Revolution is like me writing about my opinion of World War II. It will be researched and thoughtful, but will pale in comparison to the letters and words of people who actually fought the war and won.

I have shown you links to provide proof of what I stated. I stand behind them.

As for de Tocqueville, you seem to be missing the point. He visited an America STEEPED in religion, and he reported what he found. He made no statement of what the founders intended, only reporting on the reality of American life.

And since he found America that way, we can logically assume that what you believe what America was like, and what it truly was are in disagreement.

Mark

Mark, you fail to note if you looked up Horace Mann, or any of the other things that I presented to counter your argument. Are you standing by your links are are you examining the other side of the discussion to see a different version of the truth?

The Founders made clear their intent, I think it's great that America is steeped in religion, but the Founders were clear about a separation of church and state. It is a policy that has worked well in America can you imagine the Catholic Church already the dominant religion, having an opportunity to put forth their personal stamp on children? What about Jews? I think we are well served without that fight, your opinion only lasts as long as your power, then it will be someone else putting their partisan showcase out to look over.

What was the founders intent? From a historical perspective, I can see that they were against an official religion. I am as well. But day to day history of the country clearly shows that religion was completely embedded in our government. and our day to day lives.

If Mann were as successful as you say, the SCOTUS wouldn't even had bothered with the issue. They did, so he wasn't.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

If life is so good in the "Golden State", why are people and corporations leaving?

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

Mark, California has a GDP greater than Texas by 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The economic powerhouse is on the west coast, not on the Gulf coast. We are still the 6th greatest economic powerhouse in the world.

And you have 13 million more people. After comparing GDP on a per person basis, Texas has a 56,334 GDP per person while California has a 50,489 GDP per person.

Here are the facts. California is crumbling while Texas is growing. My links again show what you believe is in error.

Mark

Well in twenty years when Texas gets to the same size you might have something. Until then, you don't have a thing that competes.

If Texas does, it means that California policy is failing, while Texas is doing something right. California is an Eden on this planet. If they can make it so bad that people would leave such a place, it is proof of their failure.

Mark

 

[Markle]

Government insolvency? You mean like Greece? We are a long way from that. Despite all our troubles, the US economy is still the gold standard, and thus the greenback is still the reserve currency. Which means the government can borrow as much money as they want from the federal reserve. Yes, rates will go up, but US T - Bills will be the safest bet for a long time.

Not so much anymore. The number of dollars we are printing has gone up exponentially in the past eight years. Making each one worth less and less.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

What people and corporations are leaving? The people who leave, leave because they can't afford housing - they're not the rich. The corporations that leave are the ones that rely on low skill, low wage labor for which we will never be able to compete with third world countries.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/b...a-lost-9-000-business-hqs-and-expansions.html

Mark

Mark, California has a GDP greater than Texas by 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The economic powerhouse is on the west coast, not on the Gulf coast. We are still the 6th greatest economic powerhouse in the world.

And you have 13 million more people. After comparing GDP on a per person basis, Texas has a 56,334 GDP per person while California has a 50,489 GDP per person.

Here are the facts. California is crumbling while Texas is growing. My links again show what you believe is in error.

Mark

Well in twenty years when Texas gets to the same size you might have something. Until then, you don't have a thing that competes.

If Texas does, it means that California policy is failing, while Texas is doing something right. California is an Eden on this planet. If they can make it so bad that people would leave such a place, it is proof of their failure.

Mark

You have the lowest number of graduating high school seniors in the nation, do you think California is going to fill those shoes? We still have 40 million people and Mark, if 20 million people want to leave here so you can be the most populated, then I will drive a bus to deliver them.