Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 181 of 244 (557069)
04-22-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Buzsaw
04-22-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
A lot of things, Taq? How about some specificities.
Slavery, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, and not allowing women to vote come immediately to mind.
America has never been perfect, even in teh beginning. Even the Constitution in its original state was far from perfect. Fortunately, it had some really good ideas (like religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc) to outweigh the bad bits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Buzsaw, posted 04-22-2010 1:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:23 PM Rahvin has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 182 of 244 (557072)
04-22-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Buzsaw
04-22-2010 1:11 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
One of those rights is the free exercise of religion and the Constitution does not limit that free exercise in government buildings or functions. Exercising does not constitute establishment.
It all depends on who is exercising. If it's a government official in the exercise of his/her duties, then it is. If it's a person acting in their capacity as a private individual, then it's not.
Capisce?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Buzsaw, posted 04-22-2010 1:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:17 PM subbie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 183 of 244 (557076)
04-22-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by subbie
04-22-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
One of those rights is the free exercise of religion and the Constitution does not limit that free exercise in government buildings or functions. Exercising does not constitute establishment.
It all depends on who is exercising. If it's a government official in the exercise of his/her duties, then it is. If it's a person acting in their capacity as a private individual, then it's not.
So if you'd been at the first Congress when Benjamin Franklin stood up to recommend that they begin the custom of opening in prayer you'd have objected, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 1:51 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 PM Faith has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 184 of 244 (557077)
04-22-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
04-22-2010 2:17 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Yes.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:27 PM subbie has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 185 of 244 (557078)
04-22-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 1:16 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Slavery, counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, and not allowing women to vote come immediately to mind.
These things were NOT written in the Constitution. They were part of the mindset of the day, yes, a universal mindset I should add, shared by the entire world at the time, and they influenced its interpretation, but thanks to the directives given by the Constitution itself for amending it to deal with such interpretive problems they were in fact dealt with as time went on.
The Constitution was designed by men who knew that human beings are fallible. You seem to want your human beings perfect and get very upset when you find out we're not. But a good government knows how to take that into account without having to line us all up and execute us when we commit injustices we don't know are injustices.
America has never been perfect, even in teh beginning. Even the Constitution in its original state was far from perfect. Fortunately, it had some really good ideas (like religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc) to outweigh the bad bits.
The Constitution is and was pretty near perfect for dealing realistically with the problems of fallible human beings IF it's understood in terms of its original intents. it's human beings who aren't perfect. That's the reason we need government at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 1:16 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 3:02 PM Faith has replied
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2010 4:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 186 of 244 (557079)
04-22-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by subbie
04-22-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Interesting. At least you're honest. And you'd have stood up and heckled George Washington when he gave his farewell address too I suppose, all those references to God, and Adams during his State of the Union addresses when he mentioned that thanks are due to a benevolent Providence. And you'd have written hate mail to Lincoln when he called for a national period of fasting and prayer, and I believe even Franklin Roosevelt did the same once, certainly others but I don't remember who all.
So what you want is Subbie for Totalitarian Tyrant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:19 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by Taq, posted 04-23-2010 10:34 AM Faith has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 187 of 244 (557080)
04-22-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
04-22-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
The third Clause of Article I Section 2 as written began with
(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
The first Clause of Article I Section 2 as written stated
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The third Clause of Article IV Section 2 as written stated
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
It was in fact written into the Constitution.
Once again, Faith, you are simply wrong.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 7:16 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 188 of 244 (557081)
04-22-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
04-22-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Wow, hysterical much?
No, I would not have heckled anyone. That would have been rude and improper. I would not have written hate mail. Believe it or not, it is possible to civilly disagree on these matters.
{AbE} What's more, and just for the record, I'm not sure all of those things are comparable to the first example that you gave, either. But at the moment I'm not particularly interested in closely examining that question. {End edit}
Seriously Faith, I think you need to get your meds adjusted.
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 189 of 244 (557084)
04-22-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
04-22-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
These things were NOT written in the Constitution. They were part of the mindset of the day, yes, a universal mindset I should add, shared by the entire world at the time, and they influenced its interpretation, but thanks to the directives given by the Constitution itself for amending it to deal with such interpretive problems they were in fact dealt with as time went on.
I'm afraid you're wrong, Faith. The COnstitution has been Amended since, thankfully, but here are the relevant bits from the original text, as written by the founders:
quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Non-free people, those being slaves, were counted as 3/5 of a person. This is in the Preamble. Obviously, the recognition and special counting of slaves means that teh Constitution allowed for slavery instead of expressly forbidding it, as it does now.
On women's suffrage, you're more correct - there is nothing in the Constitution limiting voting rights to men. The States did that themselves, and it took an Amendment to guarantee that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied on the basis of gender.
The point is that all of those things should have been addressed in teh COnsistution from the beginning. The Constitution should have made requirements for equal rights in voting for all men and women, and banned discrimination by gender. The Constitution should have counted every person and outlawed slavery.
It didn;t. Becasue the FOudning Fathers were far from perfect. They had some great ideas, but they were human beings from a different time period. They condoned things that we find abhorrent today, and to pretend that all of our woes would be solved if we just went back to the sterling moral character of the 1700s is plain fantasy.
As is always the case, the "good old days" weren't as good as we tend to imagine them.
The Constitution is and was pretty near perfect for dealing realistically with the problems of fallible human beings IF it's understood in terms of its original intents. it's human beings who aren't perfect. That's the reason we need government at all.
The Bill of Rights is pretty damned good at that. The preamble was good because it allowed for a decent compromise between States Rights and Federal control, created a representative government to the best ability of 18th century technology, established checks and balances to prevent abuses, and allowed for the Constitution itself to be amended by the people when flaws were inevitably found.
That doesn't in any way mean that the Constitution was perfect, or even particularly remarkable given modern hindsight. It certainly doesn't justify the type of Founding Father worship we see in the US, where the "intent of the framers" is suggested to carry the weight of law by some people (though those same people curiously pay attention only to the opinions of those framers who agree with themselves, not to those who would disagree).
The fact is, America is better today than it was at its founding, by far. Slavery has been abolished. All people are counted and represented equally, and nobody is denied the right to vote without due process of law (felons, those under 18, etc), including women, and people of all races (oh yeah - that one required an Amendment as well).
The Separation of Church and State is taking a larger role in modern politics simply because we are also a far more diverse nation than we were in the beginning. In 1776, there just weren't that many non-Christians for religious tolerance to be much of a concern. Today, because we are at our heart an immigrant nation, we have thousands of different kinds of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Scientologists, New Agers, Satanists, Polytheists, Deists, Atheists, and everything else you can imagine in growing abundance.
In this age of growing diversity, the protection guaranteed by the Constitution that none of us can ever be prosecuted for our religious beliefs, that the Government is religiously neutral so that we can all follow our own consciences without interference, is more important than ever.
I don't think the Founding Fathers ever foresaw what America would eventually look like. But quite frankly, their intent is irrelevant today, because America today is far different from the way it was in 1776. The fact is, they wrote down into law that the United States government is not based in any way on the Christian religion, as well as a Constitutional Amendment, the very first one, forbidding the Government from ever establishing a religion or interfering with individual practices thereof, forcing the Government to be officially neutral on all matters of faith.
That separation of Church and State is serving our very diverse nation quite well, thank you very much. Our freedom of religion has kept our nation free of such ugliness as the Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland, or the Jewish/Muslim issues in the Middle East, and virtually every other fathomable religious dispute that arises when one group feels they are being persecuted or feels they have the right to persecute others.
The United States is not now, not ever has been, officially a Christian nation, or a nation of any other official religion, and neither do the rights and privileges we enjoy as Americans stem from any deity or spirit.
As the Cosntitution says, right at the beginning, it is we, the people of the United States who grant ourselves these rights and priveledges:
quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 7:10 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 190 of 244 (557099)
04-22-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Faith
04-22-2010 2:23 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
These things were NOT written in the Constitution.
Women were not allowed to vote. That is a fact. Slaves were not allowed to vote, and for purposes of the census, they counted as a fraction as a person. This is a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Rrhain, posted 04-23-2010 9:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 191 of 244 (557123)
04-22-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 3:02 PM


separation of church and state etc.
Thanks Rahvin, I didn't know that about the 3/5 of a person was actually written into the Constitution. But we did change it and that's because the founders had the wisdom to specify how it could be changed to keep with changing times.
The point is that all of those things should have been addressed in teh COnsistution from the beginning. The Constitution should have made requirements for equal rights in voting for all men and women, and banned discrimination by gender. The Constitution should have counted every person and outlawed slavery.
And where were they going to get the perspective to do such a thing in their time? As I said, you are asking for perfect human beings. Do you think you are perfect? Do you think the mentality today is so perfect that the current perspectives need no changing?
I don't worship the founders, I see them as fallible men -- men, however, that were steeped in the best of education of their day and really did know what they were doing. The American Constitution was admired all over the world for its distillation of the best thinking of all the history that had come before. The American Experiment was admired as the first government ever based simply on law and principle, a mere document, without a king or aristocratic class to lead it. It's sad to see it all treated so lightly these days and nobody caring about the history it embodied but so ready to let the first naive thought off the top of their heads define it based only on the prejudices they've imbibed in the last couple of decades or so.
Our government is based on a document and that means that document has to be taken very seriously. We have no right to alter it whimsically, especially when they made provision for it to be changed lawfully.
Separation of church and state is fine by me if understood as it was originally understood, not as a club to be wielded against religion. As Madison wrote, it was as much for the preservation of the purity of the church as for the state, as power so easily corrupts, which corruption had been seen too many times in Europe. But it doesn't mean the exclusion of religion from public life or the government either as you think it means, as I've gone to lengths to show on this thread.
In this I find the founders at fault myself, that they didn't realize that the first amendment could be used as a weapon against what they assumed was the natural place of religion in public life.
So, again, we have a strong disagreement about what the first amendment means, and I suggest proposing an amendment to the amendment as I outlined for Jazzns earlier on this thread. Submit it for fair consideration so we can see how many share your view of the first amendment. Or are you against majority rule which is also a foundational principle of this nation?
As the Cosntitution says, right at the beginning, it is we, the people of the United States who grant ourselves these rights and priveledges:
Yeah, but the "people" aren't just leftists and atheists, and it isn't something that just HAPPENS, it has to be in writing and submitted to ALL the people or whatever agencies are designated for the determination.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 3:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 8:01 PM Faith has replied
 Message 195 by PsychMJC, posted 04-22-2010 10:15 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 202 by Taq, posted 04-23-2010 1:02 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by bluescat48, posted 04-23-2010 11:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 244 (557124)
04-22-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by subbie
04-22-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Again And Again, Promoting Not Establishment
Good to know, Subbie, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by subbie, posted 04-22-2010 2:36 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 193 of 244 (557127)
04-22-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
04-22-2010 7:10 PM


Re: separation of church and state etc.
Thanks Rahvin, I didn't know that about the 3/5 of a person was actually written into the Constitution. But we did change it and that's because the founders had the wisdom to specify how it could be changed to keep with changing times.
Indeed. Which is why it's foolish to add weight to the "original intent" of the framers. The Constitution was not written in stone...for good reason.
And where were they going to get the perspective to do such a thing in their time? As I said, you are asking for perfect human beings. Do you think you are perfect? Do you think the mentality today is so perfect that the current perspectives need no changing?
I don't worship the founders, I see them as fallible men -- men, however, that were steeped in the best of education of their day and really did know what they were doing. The American Constitution was admired all over the world for its distillation of the best thinking of all the history that had come before. The American Experiment was admired as the first government ever based simply on law and principle, a mere document, without a king or aristocratic class to lead it. It's sad to see it all treated so lightly these days and nobody caring about the history it embodied but so ready to let the first naive thought off the top of their heads define it based only on the prejudices they've imbibed in the last couple of decades or so.
Our government is based on a document and that means that document has to be taken very seriously. We have no right to alter it whimsically, especially when they made provision for it to be changed lawfully.
We aren't the first nation without an aristocracy or king; we're simply the first modern, Western nation to be so, and arguably the most successful. Several Native American nations were actually democracies, and intriguingly were a significant influence on our own government's founding.
But other than that historical nitpick, it would seem you and I agree: the Founding Fathers were just a bunch of men, who collectively had some good ideas and set up a very good framework for government. The weren't perfect, and the Constitution they created wasn't perfect, and their intentions weren't perfect, but overall they did a pretty damned good job.
Separation of church and state is fine by me if understood as it was originally understood, not as a club to be wielded against religion. As Madison wrote, it was as much for the preservation of the purity of the church as for the state, as power so easily corrupts, which corruption had been seen too many times in Europe.
Yet this contradicts what we've just agreed on. If the Founding Fathers were not perfect, and if the Constitution was always intended to change with the times, the "original understanding" of the separation of Church and State is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the same words mean to us today, and whether the policy works well in serving the public (since policies that do not serve us are more likely to be changed, ore result in our collective downfall).
But it doesn't mean the exclusion of religion from public life or the government either as you think it means, as I've gone to lengths to show on this thread.
I don;t think that's what it means, Faith. It would seem we have a miscommunication.
Every individual in the US has the right to practice their own religion (or lack thereof). I'm certain you and I agree on that point.
Part of being able to practice your religion is the right to express your religion. That means the President is allowed to go to church, for example. Just because he's a public representative of the people doesn't mean he has to leave his own rights a the door. I'm pretty sure you and I agree on this, as well.
The problem is the establishment clause. The government itself cannot establish a State religion. This means that the President can pray, can go to Church, can thank God or Jesus for the results of an election, and so on...but he cannot enact an official policy that recognizes Christianity in particular as opposed to people of all beliefs.
I even think we mostly agree on that point.
Where you and I are likely to disagree strongly is exactly where that "official" bit begins and ends, because there is a point where "official" and "personal" blur.
I don't think religion should be excluded from public life; in fact, I;d say that a restriction on when one can and cannot be Christian or Muslim or anything else based on whether you're in public or not would be a violation of the separation of Church and State, as well - the government isn't supposed to restrict the free expression of personal beliefs.
Perhaps we should try an example? Let's use a Cross located in a public courthouse. Should a Christian Cross be allowed to stand in such a place?
I would say no, unless iconography from all other religions are also allowed to be placed immediately upon request. To place an icon from one religion only in a publicly funded, official building constitutes an official recognition of the one faith, without also recognizing others, and in fact recognizes belief over disbelief. I think the courthouse should remain a public building of law, and that while individuals inside the courthouse may express their own beliefs, wear a cross necklace, and so on, the courthouse itself in its official capacity must remain completely neutral on the subject of religion, as unbiased and blind as Lady Liberty herself.
Would you agree with that, Faith? If not, why not?
In this I find the founders at fault myself, that they didn't realize that the first amendment could be used as a weapon against what they assumed was the natural place of religion in public life.
So, again, we have a strong disagreement about what the first amendment means, and I suggest proposing an amendment to the amendment as I outlined for Jazzns earlier on this thread. Submit it for fair consideration so we can see how many share your view of the first amendment. Or are you against majority rule which is also a foundational principle of this nation?
The Founders, fortunately, were also wise enough to not set up a pure Democracy where the majority rules all. That's why we have a Constitutionally Limited Representative Republic - to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, while still allowing the majority to determine the course of the nation.
However, you're free to write your congresscritter and see if you can get your Amendment proposed. Of course, if you can't even get enough "majority" support to get your Amendment onto the floor in Congress, it would seem I have nothing to fear.
Yeah, but the "people" aren't just leftists and atheists, and it isn't something that just HAPPENS, it has to be in writing and submitted to ALL the people or whatever agencies are designated for the determination.
In the case of the Constitution, it was written by the Founders and ratified by the States. That's basically what has to happen for any proposed Amendment - it gets voted on in Congress, and then passed to the States for ratification.
We, collectively, are the people - and yes, that includes "leftists," Atheists. Deists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, Buddhists, Wiccans, Satanists, Scientologists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, radicals, and reactionaries, with everything in between.
Personally, I think that keeping religion as a "hands off" topic for the government (while still allowing for the individuals who make up the government to express their own beliefs, both publicly and privately, so long as they don;t do so officially) makes us stronger as a nation. As an Atheist, I don;t have to worry about a Muslim demanding I be executed for rejecting Allah. Wiccans don't need to worry about Christians who "shalt not suffer a witch to live." Protestants and Catholics don't need to worry about a repeat of Ireland in America. And I think that the diversity of life experience, of opinions, and ideas allowed by the peace of mind to be able to be oneself and obey the dictates of one's own conscience without the government getting in the way is the very best thing about this country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 7:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 8:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 244 (557128)
04-22-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Rahvin
04-22-2010 8:01 PM


Re: separation of church and state etc.
Yet this contradicts what we've just agreed on. If the Founding Fathers were not perfect, and if the Constitution was always intended to change with the times, the "original understanding" of the separation of Church and State is irrelevant.
No, that way lies chaos, anarchy and madness. No. Absolutely not and I said the exact opposite. Changing it has to be a formal process that allows a voice to all interested parties. That's the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and not to know what was intended by its creators is to condemn ourselves to a solipsistic universe in which we all trust in our own kneejerk reactions or whatever philosophical fad has just come down the pike, throw the wisdom of centuries out the window. You are relegating the governing of the nation in the end to whoever has the physical might to subdue the rest, or the glibbest silveriest tongue, exactly what the Constitution was so wisely designed to avoid.
If I have time I'll look at the rest later.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2010 8:01 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by bluescat48, posted 04-22-2010 10:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
PsychMJC
Member (Idle past 1302 days)
Posts: 36
From: Modesto, California
Joined: 11-30-2007


Message 195 of 244 (557137)
04-22-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
04-22-2010 7:10 PM


Re: separation of church and state etc.
It's sad to see it all treated so lightly these days and nobody caring about the history it embodied but so ready to let the first naive thought off the top of their heads define it based only on the prejudices they've imbibed in the last couple of decades or so.
Yes. It really is sad. I wonder who the naive person is here... The one who argues from the actual document or the person who doesn't even know the history of the document or what it says. How you think you know better I have no idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 04-22-2010 7:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024