Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 106 of 331 (529652)
10-10-2009 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by JRTjr
10-09-2009 3:33 PM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
I am afraid that this is ‘off topic’.
I'm not sure that it is. The thread brought up the issue of the First Amendment and Supreme Court and I just added some background information that had bearing on the discussion. I don't think you can discuss the First Amendment or Supreme Court without understanding the history or the evolution of how the First Amendment was interpreted. As it stands, creation stories cannot be taught in science classrooms, but the topic just asks which creation story should be taught. It is likely that the current Supreme Court would favor a decision to allow all creation stories to be taught outside the science classroom in say, a class about world religions because it would satisfy all prongs of the Lemon Test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JRTjr, posted 10-09-2009 3:33 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 107 of 331 (529656)
10-10-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by JRTjr
10-06-2009 11:11 PM


JRTjr writes:
quote:
Since the U.S. Congress is the only Federal body that can constitutionally create Federal Law in the United States of America the Supreme Court overstepped its bound by making up a Separation of Church and State rule.
Thus showing you don't really understand constitutional law.
Of course, the Legislature is the only body that can write law, but the separation of church and state isn't "law." It's a constitutional principle.
And by the Constitution, judical power resides in the Judiciary, not the Legislature. The Congress can write whatever law it wishes, but it must be in confluence with the Constitution and it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to verify that the law fits with the Constitution.
Suppose Congress were to write a law saying you, personally, are to be my slave. This violates not only the Thirteenth Amendment regarding the abolition of slavery but also Article I, Section 9 regarding bills of attainder. Where are you supposed to turn to have that law overturned if not the courts? Oh, you might petition Congress to strike the law, but what if they refuse? You might request the Executive not to sign the law, but what if it is? Now that it has been ratified and passed, where can you find relief from slavery?
That is what the Supreme Court is for. It's what "judicial power" means. "Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can.
Hint: The specific phrase, "separation of church and state," wasn't coined by the Court but rather by Jefferson. However, it rather succinctly describes how the Court interprets the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Do not get caught up words.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JRTjr, posted 10-06-2009 11:11 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Izanagi, posted 10-10-2009 12:42 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 108 of 331 (529659)
10-10-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
10-10-2009 12:30 AM


Actually, if Congress and the President both agreed that JRTjr should be your slave and would uphold that belief no matter what, nothing the Court could say would make a difference. The Court relies on the President and Congress to agree to follow its interpretation of the Constitution and to uphold any decision by the Court. Furthermore, JRTjr would actually need to be able to bring the case before the Court before the Court could have any say in the matter. If JRTjr could not bring the legislation to court, and no one else brought that legislation before any court, then it could never reach the Supreme Court and JRTjr would be your slave since the constitutionality of the act would never be challenged. Additionally, the Court could, in theory, interpret the Thirteenth Amendment in such a way as to allow JRTjr to be your slave since the Thirteenth Amendment states that
quote:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
meaning the Court could say that Congress is punishing JRTjr for some crime by having him be your slave.
All in all, the real power to enact change is usually vested in the Legislative and Executive, not the Courts. That said, what the Court decides still has weight to the American public and the Court has opined that teaching one specific creation story in a science classroom, or even a public school, is unconstitutional.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 10-10-2009 12:30 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5241 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 109 of 331 (530452)
10-13-2009 3:26 PM


Easy (original) question: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
The myth of the FSM seems as good as any other.
It's interesting how religious ideas have, um, "evolved" over time, isn't it!?

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 110 of 331 (566506)
06-25-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
10-10-2009 12:30 AM


Dear Rrhain,
Thank you for your response to my posting; I apologize for not responding sooner.
Rrhain writes:
"Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen. It only makes sense in the light of a law that exists...and that is something that only Congress can do. If the law that Congress passes violates the First Amendment's protections, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike it down for they are the only ones who can.
You are correct that Separation of church and state" isn't a law per say; your also right in that it is the Supreme Court that is suppose to be making sure that the laws of our land are in accordance with the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’.
However, when the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is 180 degrees opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ states they are ‘in effect’ making up law.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
According to the ‘First Amendment’ to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ the Government cannot make laws that prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, exclude, make illegal, proscribe, or disallow the free exercise of religion
This is clear, plain and simple; the Government of the United States of America, according to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’, can not restrict, or outlaw an establishment of religion or prohibit it’s free exercise.
For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’.
As you yourself have stated, there is no separation of Church and State clause it the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’; and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation.
Thank you for your interest; I promise to respond much sooner this time if you choose to comment on my posting,
JRTjr
P.S.
Rrhain writes:
"Separation of church and state" isn't a law for it does not make anything happen.
Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 10-10-2009 12:30 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2010 5:25 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 06-25-2010 8:59 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 113 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2010 9:03 AM JRTjr has replied
 Message 114 by purpledawn, posted 06-25-2010 9:31 AM JRTjr has replied

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


Message 111 of 331 (566518)
06-25-2010 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


For those whom are still unclear, the Supreme Court, itself, is in violation of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ when it requires that Christian symbols, and historical landmarks be taken down from public domains because they are ‘religious in nature’.
Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Consititution.
Now, if you disagree with my interpretation of the Constitution, then fortunately the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so.
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation.
You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law.
Requiring Crosses, manger scenes, Bibles, etc be taken off public property, buildings, etc. is making something happen.
Specifically, it's defending the Establishment Clause against those who wish to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of their religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 112 of 331 (566546)
06-25-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


According to the ‘First Amendment’ to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ the Government cannot make laws that prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, exclude, make illegal, proscribe, or disallow the free exercise of religion
Which means that no one can do this. The free exercise of religion A in no way can interfere with the free exercise of religion B. That is the Gist of the statement freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
The banning of religious symbols is just that, freedom of religion.
Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 8:57 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 113 of 331 (566548)
06-25-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation.
Yes, I've noticed how often our Constitution mentions gods.......once. In the phrase "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's some real "weaving," all right....
Don't read David Barton, JRTjr. It'll rot your teeth.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 9:37 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 114 of 331 (566550)
06-25-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by JRTjr
06-25-2010 2:27 AM


"Free Exercise"
quote:
This is clear, plain and simple; the Government of the United States of America, according to the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’, can not restrict, or outlaw an establishment of religion or prohibit it’s free exercise.
I think some issues go to extreme, but I don't think it is unreasonable to keep religious icons off public property. It isn't an exercise of religion to put icons on public property. The Bible doesn't say thou shalt put up graven images for public viewing.
This article is good.
Establishing Free Exercise
To reformulate free exercise, the Court could do worse than turn to the writings of James Madison. Not only did Madison introduce the Bill of Rights into Congress, he has long been cited as the authoritative guide for the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty. Madison offers a clear and simple statement, moreover, summarizing what free exercise means. When editing the religious freedom amendment to Virginia’s state Bill of Rights, Madison proposed the following:
That religion or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not violence or compulsion, all men are equally entitled to the full and free exercise of it accord[in]g to the dictates of conscience; and therefore that no man or class of men ought, on account of religion to be invested with peculiar emoluments or privileges, nor subjected to any penalties or disabilities.
What does the exercise of the Christian religion actually entail?

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by JRTjr, posted 06-25-2010 2:27 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by JRTjr, posted 07-01-2010 11:51 PM purpledawn has replied

  
JRTjr
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 178
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Joined: 07-19-2004


Message 115 of 331 (566753)
06-26-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Dr Adequate
06-25-2010 5:25 AM


Opposite World?!?!?
Dear Dr. Adequate,
Thank you for your response.
Dr. Adequate writes:
Perhaps this is true in Opposite World, but back in the real world it is putting these things up that violates the Constitution.
Is your position so weak you have to resort to belittling your opponent?
Dr. Adequate writes:
the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, therefore, they're right about this just because they say so.
This answer reminds me of my mother when I was a little kid. I would ask a question that my mother really did not have an answer to so she would just say Because I said so!
With that said; I only have one small problem with your assertion that the Constitution specifically empowers a body to determine what the Constitution means in cases of potential ambiguity, namely the Supreme Court.
Article III of the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ does not empower the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means. It says: judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority
The ‘small’ point I am making here is this: the Supreme Court is not the Final authority on what the Constitution says; the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is the final authority on what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says.
So, If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right.
JRTRjr Wrote:
... and even a casual reading of our founding documents will show that our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation.
Dr. Adequate replied:
You seem to rewrite history with the same ease and fluency with which you rewrite constitutional law.
Now, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
O.k. let me give you a few examples: click this link - Legal Information Institute
Please, note here that this is not a right-wing religious website.
Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-25-2010 5:25 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Theodoric, posted 06-26-2010 6:21 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 117 by Coragyps, posted 06-26-2010 6:48 PM JRTjr has replied
 Message 118 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-26-2010 6:58 PM JRTjr has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 116 of 331 (566754)
06-26-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by JRTjr
06-26-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Opposite World?!?!?
So, If the Supreme Court says something, or does something, that is opposite of what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says then the Supreme Court is wrong and the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is right.
The constitution isn't a living breathing thing. The Constitution cannot be right or wrong. It has been interpreted many times and many ways by the courts. According to the constitution, the Supreme Court is allowed to determinbe the constitutionality of laws. If they say it is unconstitutional then that is it. Other courts could decide otherwise in the future but until then that is the final say.
The Supreme Court cannot make an unconstitutional decision. They may make a decision that someone thinks goes against the constituition, but that does not make the decision unconstitutional.
P.S.
Drop the colors. It makes your post hard to read and makes you look even more juvenile than your arguments do.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by JRTjr, posted 07-06-2010 12:38 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 117 of 331 (566756)
06-26-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by JRTjr
06-26-2010 6:03 PM


FRe: Opposite World?!?!?
From your link, JRT:
(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution’s use of the express religious reference ‘Year of our Lord’ in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district’s policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.
I don't know who wrote this, but some of the "absurd" leaked out of their pen. First, the last paragraph of the Constitution preceded the First Amendment by three years or so. We try not to do retroactive laws in this country. Second, ‘Year of our Lord’ is not an "express religious reference" - it's merely a way of telling time. You will note that it is immediately followed by "and of the Independance (sic) of the United States of America the Twelfth." That's an alternate way of telling time.
"Under God" in the pledge is a whole different kettle of fish. It has no purpose in there except to chase away those scary godless pinko commies that were hiding under every other bed in 1954. Kind of like crosses and movieland Dracula.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 2:44 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


(1)
Message 118 of 331 (566757)
06-26-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by JRTjr
06-26-2010 6:03 PM


Re: Opposite World?!?!?
Is your position so weak you have to resort to belittling your opponent?
No. Your position is so weak that, without belittling you in any way, I pointed out that it was wrong.
This answer reminds me of my mother when I was a little kid. I would ask a question that my mother really did not have an answer to so she would just say Because I said so!
The difference is that in the case of the law this is actually how it works --- this is only one of the many differences between the Supreme Court and your mother.
In effect, the Constitution says that the Supreme Court can have the final say on what the Constitution means, whenever this is legally disputed.
U.S. Constitution, article III, section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact , with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The ‘small’ point I am making here is this: the Supreme Court is not the Final authority on what the Constitution says; the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ is the final authority on what the ‘Constitution of the United States of America’ says.
Sure, the Constitution is the final authority on what the Constitution says.
But the Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what it means. If you think about it, someone has to be.
Now, ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
O.k. let me give you a few examples: click this link - Legal Information Institute
This does not convince me (nor do I see why it convinces you) that "our founding fore fathers not only believed in putting religious principle into government they weaved them into every aspect of the founding of this nation."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by JRTjr, posted 06-26-2010 6:03 PM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by JRTjr, posted 08-04-2010 4:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


(1)
Message 119 of 331 (566761)
06-26-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Jefferson
I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs.
Quite so. And for the State to spend its revenues on promoting one creed or sect or the doctrines thereof would be for the state to meddle in religious affairs.
While you mention Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, a little context will be provided by reading the letter that they wrote to him:
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 120 of 331 (566772)
06-27-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 12:24 AM


Re: Except it does violate the 1st amendment!?
I would suggest you read what President Thomas Jefferson actually said about a ‘Separation of Church and State’. It was meant to keep the State out of religious affairs, not to keep religion out of the State’s affairs.
Who cares what Jefferson had to say about church-state separation? Sure, we got that particular wording from a letter he wrote in the 1810's, but so what? Why not go the his life-long friend, James Madison, who not only wrote a pamphlet, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in 1785, about 30 years, three full decades, before Jefferson's letter, but then a few years later he up and went and wrote the Bill of Rights, including The First Amendment. Gee, you think maybe what Madison was thinking on the subject when he drafted The First Amendment just might possibly have some bearing on the matter?
You can Google for the text. The first hit was from virginia.edu, but that page was not accessible, so I went with the second hit, which was Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (the third was for atheism.about.com, which I figured would have caused you fits; pick whichever hit comes up -- I would navely assume that no right-wing or fundamentalist site would change the text, but you might still want to compare whichever page you choose with others, just to be sure).
OK, Jefferson might have given us the wording, but three decades prior Madison described the concept (my emphasis added):
quote:
2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
Do, do, do, do please read the entire document. It is your patriotic duty! Paragraph 1 establishes "rights of conscience", in which":
quote:
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
He develops it further to conclude (again, my emphasis added):
quote:
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.
The second paragraph establishes that what cannot be coerced by Civil Society also cannot be coerced by the Legislature. Of course, as you have already seen, it presents the concept of the "wall of separation" in the most original form that I am personally aware. It then states in no uncertain terms:
quote:
The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
OBTW, do you know what Madison was remonstrating against? Oh, this could have been pulled out of the past few decades. The Good Citizens of the State of Virginia were concerned with the general decline of the morals of the people of their state. So they asked Patrick Henry for state legislature to provide tax money to support Christian ministers, the named "teachers of the Christian religion." Jefferson was able to postpone the Legislature's vote on Henry's bill until it reconvened. Then he talked his friend James Madison into writing a pamphlet remonstrating against Henry's bill, which was distributed state-wide and generated so much public sentiment against Henry's bill for providing public tax monies to Christian ministers that in the Legislature's next session, not only did Henry's bill die without ever even coming to a vote, but Jefferson's own bill on religious liberty got passed.
The third paragraph starts with a statement that must burn in every single patriot's heart, regardless of which century/centuries he lives:
quote:
3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.
quote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
What part of that [i]do you not understand?[/]
The fourth paragraph questions how one group could deny the religious liberties of any other group (yet again, quoted only in part, so then frakin' go and read the original already!):
quote:
Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions.
quote:
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
At this point, it is way too late (0100 hours) and my own words completely pale to Madison's. Follow my link or find your own, but read Madison's Remonstrance and Memorial for yourself. If you are an actual American. If you are instead some religionist anti-American subversive, then frak you!
Paragraph 6 states that not only is government support of Christianity necessary, but it is also "a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself".
Paragraph 7 (quoted in very small part):
quote:
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.
Paragraph 8 states that a religious establishment is not necessary for the support of Civil Goverment. The observed effects in both clergy and laity are detrimental:
quote:
What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
At the time of its authorance and even woven deeply within the mythology of America even unto this very day, the idea of America serving as a haven for those religious factions who face only persecution on their native shores runs very deep. Even in 1785 James Madison saw very clearly how that iconic American promise was being made to ring so hollow:
quote:
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.
In this case, I have quoted the 9th paragraph fully, because there is no point where I could have possibly editted it. Excuse me, but do you have any possible conception of the Inquisition? The Spanish Inquisition started circa 1492. In that year, the Islamic Moors were finally expelled from Spain. That freed up Christian Spanish interests to finance Christopho Columbo's expedition to the Americas (though he earnestly thought, through erroneous geographical calculations, that he was reaching the Indies). That year (or there abouts) marked the Expulsion of the Jews (up to this point, Spain as the "Kingdom of Three Crowns", Christian, Islamic, and Jewish). The Christian Spanish atrocities against the Jews rival Nazi Germany only in the sheer scale and efficiency -- after the Expulsion Act in Spain, those Jews being expatriated from Spain were summarily dumped at sea, to be drowned. Then those Jews who converted to Christianity were ever thereafter suspected of continuing to harbor secret Jewish beliefs, which in all reality lead directly to the Spanish Inquisition, which lasted from circa 1942 to mid 1830's. The only way a Jew could have remained in Spain was to have converted to Christianity, but then every single Jew who so converted was immediately suspected of having converted falsely, which directly sparked the Spanish Inquisition.
My ex-wife is Mexican. Even though she was not in any measure observant in her Catholic duties (she used to routinely play hooky from her Catholic classes, such that when the final ceremony finally came down, she had absolutely no idea what all the frakn' Latin was about).
Paragraph 10 tells us that
quote:
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
quote:
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?
Paragraph 12 questions whether the proposed bill will lead all to 'the light". The answer is, No.
Paragraph 13:
quote:
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?
quote:
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.
quote:
15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 12:24 AM JRTjr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by JRTjr, posted 08-05-2010 11:10 AM dwise1 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