The Founders on Religion

[Seawytch]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

What facts did you provide that were given an "emotional" response?

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

That's cute...You start out blathering about an "emotional response" and then proceed to make an argument about how you feel about the law rather than the law itself.

No one, I say again, no one is making the slightest attempt to challenge Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. You mention Rand Paul and how he brought up the CRA. How did that go for him?

Rand Paul rewrites his own history

Nope, the only attacks are at the state level with very particular local laws that protect gays.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

No.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Microsoft also makes hardware. Now excuse me while I return to my Microsoft Xbox...

Now I know you are fucked up in the head... True gamers use Playstations

True gamers don't dis other people's consoles. I have two PS4s, an Xbox One, Xbox 360 and a PS3.

I keep forgetting progressives dont have a sense of humor.

Well, see, a sense of humor requires the ability to understand the joke, and perception is REALLY not one of their strong points.

Since you have such amazing perception, what was "the joke"?

If you need a joke explained, you'll never get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just about every one of the founders believed in God....and not a God who simply made the earth and ignored it...a God who would judge individuals on their actions...even Benjamin Franklin and T. Jefferson believed it......

Separation of church and state was supposed to be the state leaving religions alone...not religious people leaving the state alone.

Uh, Jefferson was a deist who absolutely did not believe in a personal god.

Regardless, Franklin said THIS about organized religion:

“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

Even assuming you're right and Jefferson's beliefs were so black-and-white, cut-and-dried, that means exactly WHAT in terms of refuting 2aguy's post?

 

[Seawytch]

Now I know you are fucked up in the head... True gamers use Playstations

True gamers don't dis other people's consoles. I have two PS4s, an Xbox One, Xbox 360 and a PS3.

I keep forgetting progressives dont have a sense of humor.

Well, see, a sense of humor requires the ability to understand the joke, and perception is REALLY not one of their strong points.

Since you have such amazing perception, what was "the joke"?

If you need a joke explained, you'll never get it.

I didn't ask for an explanation, I asked what the joke was. Do you know? Are you a gamer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just about every one of the founders believed in God....and not a God who simply made the earth and ignored it...a God who would judge individuals on their actions...even Benjamin Franklin and T. Jefferson believed it......

Separation of church and state was supposed to be the state leaving religions alone...not religious people leaving the state alone.

Uh, Jefferson was a deist who absolutely did not believe in a personal god.

Regardless, Franklin said THIS about organized religion:

“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

Damn near everything you lefties try to insist on.

If you really want to know what the Founders intended with the First Amendment, why don't you take a look at what they actually DID after it was ratified? What was their society like, and what sort of laws and government actions did they actually pass?

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?

Afraid to say you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just about every one of the founders believed in God....and not a God who simply made the earth and ignored it...a God who would judge individuals on their actions...even Benjamin Franklin and T. Jefferson believed it......

Separation of church and state was supposed to be the state leaving religions alone...not religious people leaving the state alone.

Uh, Jefferson was a deist who absolutely did not believe in a personal god.

Regardless, Franklin said THIS about organized religion:

“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Same reason laws that have since been repealed and judicial decisions that have since been overturned passed: because politicians are a bunch of sleazy, weaseling lawyers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Did those laws exist prior to the Civil Rights movement? I honestly don't know. I know conscientious objector status dates back to the Revolution. And imo Ali got unfair treatment too.

No, but that doesn't change the question. Laws requiring religious people to serve those (blacks) they didn't feel their religion wanted them to, lost at the Supreme Court level. Seems like the system is working just as the founders intended.

Pretty sure the Founders NEVER intended for the courts to ignore the Constitution and impose their own personal whims.

 

[Seawytch]

Just about every one of the founders believed in God....and not a God who simply made the earth and ignored it...a God who would judge individuals on their actions...even Benjamin Franklin and T. Jefferson believed it......

Separation of church and state was supposed to be the state leaving religions alone...not religious people leaving the state alone.

Uh, Jefferson was a deist who absolutely did not believe in a personal god.

Regardless, Franklin said THIS about organized religion:

“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

Damn near everything you lefties try to insist on.

If you really want to know what the Founders intended with the First Amendment, why don't you take a look at what they actually DID after it was ratified? What was their society like, and what sort of laws and government actions did they actually pass?

Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

 

[Cellblock2429]

Given that state supported persecution by the Catholic Church was the reason the Pilgrims left Europe, it is easy to see why the Founders wanted church doctrine kept out of government.

/---- wrong. They wanted to stop the practice of requiring folks to belong to the official state sanctioned church to get Gubmint jobs or to do business with them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?

Afraid to say you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters?

You obviously have mistaken yourself for someone whose opinion of me matters in the slightest. You have also obviously mistaken your worldview as some sort of moral standard which people strive to achieve.

I realize that this statement is going to make no sense to you whatsoever, being all full of ideals and principles and such, but see if you can get someone to explain it to you: I respect and defend the right of people to be ignorant assholes, and even act upon their ignorant assholery, while at the same time retaining my right to disagree with them and think they're ignorant assholes.

Or, to dumb it down for the leftists in the audience, I have zero interest in eating in any restaurant whose owners would refuse service based on race, but I would like very much for those owners to have the ability to make that position completely clear to everyone, so that I can avoid them. I do not like unknowingly giving my money to people who are repugnant, simply because you daft leftist tyrants force them to hide their beliefs so that you can all pretend the world is a liberal utopia.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Poor republicans. If only the founders had written that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, unless it's Christianity.

/--- wrong again Gomer. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[Divine Wind]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

What facts did you provide that were given an "emotional" response?

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

That's cute...You start out blathering about an "emotional response" and then proceed to make an argument about how you feel about the law rather than the law itself.

No one, I say again, no one is making the slightest attempt to challenge Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. You mention Rand Paul and how he brought up the CRA. How did that go for him?

Rand Paul rewrites his own history

Nope, the only attacks are at the state level with very particular local laws that protect gays.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

No.

Yes, it is my opinion that the law is wrong.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?...

Because, although they have different agendas, both the RNC and DNC are increasingly authoritarian. Both seek to make the Feds stronger in order to favor their individual agendas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

What facts did you provide that were given an "emotional" response?

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

That's cute...You start out blathering about an "emotional response" and then proceed to make an argument about how you feel about the law rather than the law itself.

No one, I say again, no one is making the slightest attempt to challenge Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. You mention Rand Paul and how he brought up the CRA. How did that go for him?

Rand Paul rewrites his own history

Nope, the only attacks are at the state level with very particular local laws that protect gays.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

No.

Yes, it is my opinion that the law is wrong.

You realize you probably just confused Wychie Poo by suggesting that legal/illegal and right/wrong are different and separate concepts, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Uh, Jefferson was a deist who absolutely did not believe in a personal god.

Regardless, Franklin said THIS about organized religion:

“Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint, but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house."

You have no idea what you are talking about.....their words on the matter have already been posted.....especially Franklin's.....but keep lying...then go to confession...

Okay, so what is your perception of what the founders wanted in regard to religion and the government ? What, today, does not gel with your perception of what they foresaw?

The Founders wanted no state religion,that is a religion created by the government with the power to tax in order to support it....as happened in England, ....they also wanted the government to stay out of the business of the various religions. Forcing religious people to bake cakes against their religious beliefs is exactly what they were trying to prevent.....

Also.....churches should be free to exercise their political opinions without losing their tax exempt status......government was to stay out of religion.....not religion out of government.

So why did laws requiring religious people to go against their religious beliefs pass Constitutional scrutiny?

Same reason laws that have since been repealed and judicial decisions that have since been overturned passed: because politicians are a bunch of sleazy, weaseling lawyers.

So they were " mistaken" when they said Public Accommodation did not violate the Constitution? They ruled on it in the 60s.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

Or, you know, just let the marketplace full of people who find bigotry repugnant deal with them.

And hey, if they actually find enough like-minded dumbasses to keep them in business, then God bless 'em, at least they're all in one place instead of running around loose.

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?

Afraid to say you're willing to go back to separate lunch counters?

You obviously have mistaken yourself for someone whose opinion of me matters in the slightest. You have also obviously mistaken your worldview as some sort of moral standard which people strive to achieve.

I realize that this statement is going to make no sense to you whatsoever, being all full of ideals and principles and such, but see if you can get someone to explain it to you: I respect and defend the right of people to be ignorant assholes, and even act upon their ignorant assholery, while at the same time retaining my right to disagree with them and think they're ignorant assholes.

Or, to dumb it down for the leftists in the audience, I have zero interest in eating in any restaurant whose owners would refuse service based on race, but I would like very much for those owners to have the ability to make that position completely clear to everyone, so that I can avoid them. I do not like unknowingly giving my money to people who are repugnant, simply because you daft leftist tyrants force them to hide their beliefs so that you can all pretend the world is a liberal utopia.

That's not what I asked. Why doesn't anyone have the balls to challenge the Federal law?

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, yeah. Dred Scott blah, blah. So why no challenges since the first "I shouldn't have to serve blacks because my religion tells me to" challenge to the FEDERAL public accommodation laws? Seriously, if y'all really do want separate lunch counters, why go after state law?

Translation: I refuse to respect your presentation of facts in this discussion and seek to keep it strictly in the realm of emotional argument.

No worries. Most partisans, especially LWers, are highly emotional so you're "normal".

What facts did you provide that were given an "emotional" response?

As for forcing shop owners to serve certain people but not others, I see that as overreach by the Federal government for the same reasons Rand Paul made a few years ago. While I think it's stupid for a businessperson to base their customer base on racist or any other reasons, I respect their right to do so. I also respect the right of others to boycott or protest their business.

Rather than force them to comply with the total weight of the Federal government, I'd rather persuade them to do the right thing. One way to do this is to allow them to serve whomever they want, but not give them Federally-backed small business loans or tax-breaks unless they comply with Federal guidelines.

That's cute...You start out blathering about an "emotional response" and then proceed to make an argument about how you feel about the law rather than the law itself.

No one, I say again, no one is making the slightest attempt to challenge Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. You mention Rand Paul and how he brought up the CRA. How did that go for him?

Rand Paul rewrites his own history

Nope, the only attacks are at the state level with very particular local laws that protect gays.

BTW, is this referencing Hillary's and the DNC's leaked emails?
"The Empire reminds Alderaan survivors that the leaked Death Star plans was the real war crime here. ~ John Fugelsang"

No.

Yes, it is my opinion that the law is wrong.

Goody gumdrops. Your feelings don't change the law.

 

[Seawytch]

That's a great concept. Now, make it a reality. Challenge Title II of the CRA. Nobody is doing that...how come?...

Because, although they have different agendas, both the RNC and DNC are increasingly authoritarian. Both seek to make the Feds stronger in order to favor their individual agendas.

Lame cop out. Bigots aren't having a problem arguing their "religious freedom" with local laws. Pussies.