Traditional Values Defined

[MissileMan]

You cant understand the difference between laws that punish, and laws that give benefits? Well, no wonder you think its bullshit.

Is housing punishment? Is it legal to discriminate against potential tenants based on race? Your statement remains bullshit.

 

[manu1959]

so "no law respecting the establishment of religion" means no laws will be based on religion.

no that is not what it says otherwise it would say that...

 

[manu1959]

It wasn't just churches on foreign soil that made it abundantly clear that government and religion should remain separate. There was plenty of persecution occurring in the pre-constitutional colonies.

I find it difficult to believe that you summarily dismiss a post-writing declaration of intent by one of the authors of the document. If his can't be considered an expert opinion on the intent, noone's can.


I agree with you on this. But unless these government buildings are also going to exhibit the religious symbols of the minorities, and I'm only talking about new exhibits not ones that have been in place for decades, then they are discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

the 14th amendment is about citizenship not religion

 

[MissileMan]

the 14th amendment is about citizenship not religion

It prohibits discrimination, which can include religious discrimination.

 

[manu1959]

It prohibits discrimination, which can include religious discrimination.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

looks like it grants rights to me....clarifying wh gets these rights and how to ensure that you get them

 

[Annie]

It wasn't just churches on foreign soil that made it abundantly clear that government and religion should remain separate. There was plenty of persecution occurring in the pre-constitutional colonies.

I find it difficult to believe that you summarily dismiss a post-writing declaration of intent by one of the authors of the document. If his can't be considered an expert opinion on the intent, noone's can.


I agree with you on this. But unless these government buildings are also going to exhibit the religious symbols of the minorities, and I'm only talking about new exhibits not ones that have been in place for decades, then they are discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

Jefferson was not one of the authors of the document, he was in France during the time of the Constitution writing. He did send a lot of books back to members of the Convention, though.

 

[Annie]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending
with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice,
ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of
our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams (Address to the Military, 11 October 1798)

 

[Abbey Normal]

Jefferson was not one of the authors of the document, he was in France during the time of the Constitution writing. He did send a lot of books back to members of the Convention, though.

This bears repeating.

 

[Max Power]

So, why do you believe this does this not apply to the establishment clause?

Seriously.

Kathianne?

 

[Annie]

Kathianne?

Max, I will concede that the US amendments are binding on the states.

 

[liberalogic]

no that is not what it says otherwise it would say that...

"There will be no law respecting the establishment of religion"

Interpret it for me in your own words...and please don't say that it's obvious...just tell me exactly how you interpret that line...those are the correct words, so don't change them for your use.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"There will be no law respecting the establishment of religion"

Interpret it for me in your own words...and please don't say that it's obvious...just tell me exactly how you interpret that line...those are the correct words, so don't change them for your use.

You go first, ll. What's it mean to you?

 

[liberalogic]

You go first, ll. What's it mean to you?

I've literally posted my interpretation a million times. That's why I asked it, because everyone is calling my explanation illogical.

 

[MissileMan]

Jefferson was not one of the authors of the document, he was in France during the time of the Constitution writing. He did send a lot of books back to members of the Convention, though.

True enough, but Jefferson wrote the "Bill for Religious Liberty" that was added to the Virginia constitution and was the model for Madison's proposal.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I've literally posted my interpretation a million times. That's why I asked it, because everyone is calling my explanation illogical.

"That the State-US-cannot establish a state religion. Nothing though should prohibit the free excercise of one's religion." -- Kathianne.

 

[deaddude]

"That the State-US-cannot establish a state religion. Nothing though should prohibit the free excercise of one's religion." -- Kathianne.

RWA I assume you are arguing that the freedom of religion clause in the US constitution only aplies to the federal government, and does not restrict the States in any way. Technically this is correct. However you will find a similar clause in the State constitution of every state in the US. For the sake of size I will post a few examples rather than use all fifty. These clauses do restrict the power of the states to infringe upon the freedom of religion.

Alabama
SECTION 3

Religious freedom.
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Alaska
1.4 Freedom of Religion

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Arizona
12. Liberty of conscience; appropriations for religious purposes prohibited; religious freedom
Section 12. The liberty of conscience secured by the provisions of this constitution shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, or to the support of any religious establishment. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned touching his religious belief in any court of justice to affect the weight of his testimony.

 

[Annie]

True enough, but Jefferson wrote the "Bill for Religious Liberty" that was added to the Virginia constitution and was the model for Madison's proposal.

That was changed enough to provide what the first amendment said. It, along with all other Bills of Rights from the colonies/states, were in fact made subordinate to the US Constitution. In spite of which, Jefferson did in fact use more words, he still just come up with 'a right against establishment':

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson, 1786
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

 

[MissileMan]

That was changed enough to provide what the first amendment said. It, along with all other Bills of Rights from the colonies/states, were in fact made subordinate to the US Constitution. In spite of which, Jefferson did in fact use more words, he still just come up with 'a right against establishment':

I'd say he came up with a bit more than that.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

This clearly demonstrates the intent to not only bestow the right to freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. It also clearly demonstrates a prohibition of using tax dollars (public funds) in furtherance of anything religious.

 

[Annie]

I'd say he came up with a bit more than that.



This clearly demonstrates the intent to not only bestow the right to freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. It also clearly demonstrates a prohibition of using tax dollars (public funds) in furtherance of anything religious.

No more so than because of my religion, I would not support WMD's and should then be able to deduct that from my tax liabilities.

 

[MissileMan]

No more so than because of my religion, I would not support WMD's and should then be able to deduct that from my tax liabilities.

If indeed the military were a religious organization, then taxes spent on defense would be unconstitutional. One of the expressed purposes of the government as outlined in the COTUS is to provide for defense. I don't think you can reasonably argue that the founders intended for people to be able to opt of of taxes if they disagreed on what the money was being spent on.