PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
are you denying it?....we have liberals on this board who favor it......
U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down!
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
are you denying it?....we have liberals on this board who favor it......
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
being ignored isn't "outrage"......the only outrage that occurred was that of the people being ignored.....
The glaring hypocrisy of your own partisan rhetoric surely escapes you dimwit.
They are mutually exclusive.
There is no record of Madison saying that regarding the establishment clause.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Google is your friend, moron; try using it before you embarrass yourself again.
Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.
For other clueless dimwits like you who struggle with research and have trouble comprehending different religious beliefs, accepting their diverse symbols does not equal condoning them. The Constitution does not ban Wicca, it prevents the State from establishing any religion citizens must adhere to.
The historic reasons are clear; our founders had come to this land to escape State-sanctioned persecution of religion. European nations sanctioned and "required" their citizens to abide by the State religion. Our founders wanted to ensure that our nation allowed for religious freedom of any denomination, Wicca being just one example, but NOT freedom FROM religion. This runs contrary to many dullard arguments desperately trying to claim that Christianity only is the preferred belief of our culture and morality.
Your sneering outrage had been noted; but if you did that to your fellow repubtards, you would be left with LESS than zero.
Now run back into that hole you crawled out of and spare me any more of your absurd hypocrisy, dimwit.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
So basically you're ignoring your straw man, to complain about someone else's perceived straw man.
Damn you're pathetic, even for a gun smuggling liar.
Sorry about Natelson; I don't know if I wrote it wrongly or was autocorrected by my phone. You can spend a year on this paper if you read the references; very good stuff.
I'll check out your link.
Last edited:
evince
Truthmatters
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php?title=672&Itemid=27
Kenneth Minogue, The Liberal Mind [1963]
thanks for the link Christie
some interesting stuff at the site
Kenneth Minogue, The Liberal Mind [1963]
thanks for the link Christie
some interesting stuff at the site
evince
Truthmatters
Google is your friend, moron; try using it before you embarrass yourself again.
Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid.
For other clueless dimwits like you who struggle with research and have trouble comprehending different religious beliefs, accepting their diverse symbols does not equal condoning them. The Constitution does not ban Wicca, it prevents the State from establishing any religion citizens must adhere to.
The historic reasons are clear; our founders had come to this land to escape State-sanctioned persecution of religion. European nations sanctioned and "required" their citizens to abide by the State religion. Our founders wanted to ensure that our nation allowed for religious freedom of any denomination, Wicca being just one example, but NOT freedom FROM religion. This runs contrary to many dullard arguments desperately trying to claim that Christianity only is the preferred belief of our culture and morality.
Your sneering outrage had been noted; but if you did that to your fellow repubtards, you would be left with LESS than zero.
Now run back into that hole you crawled out of and spare me any more of your absurd hypocrisy, dimwit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram
he got confused I think
They are not mutually exclusive. The court in Everson stopped short of fully applying the limits that were intended but the decision was mostly in agreement with the original intent.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/house-debates/0815-2/
Mr. MADISON said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion the under the clause of the constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it was well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
...
Madison's intent was quite clear. He had fought for several years to get Jefferson's bill for Religious Freedom passed in Virginia. His Memorial and Remonstrances was hugely influential in that battle, was widely read and laid out clearly his intent with the first. It was already a settled matter that the Federal government should not compel support of religion. The only real debate in Congress was over whether any of the Bill of Rights were needed and, on the first, there was some concern that it might be interpreted even more broadly so as to "abolish religion altogether."
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html
The one fabricating history is Barton and his little clones. A wall of separation was the intent.http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/house-debates/0815-2/
christiefan915
Catalyst
I know, and it's all there for online reading! No need to try and track down old books.
Nope. You are the one that offered the strawman with your silly response pretending that I meant to imply that "support" was in the text. Since my statement was nearly a carbon copy of yours then for that to be true we must assume you think "mandatory" is in the text. It's not, though is it? So what does that mean? Either you are stupid or you did not mean to imply that it was in the text and neither did I mean to imply "support" was in the text as you so stupidly and dishonestly pretended.
You can rephrase your question to something more honest (I doubt you can escape stupid though) if you like or you can continue with your scumbag tactics.
Last edited:
They envisioned a government that did not endorse any particular religion and I believe religion in particular. They envisioned a nation of people who were free to be a part of religion or not, free to worship or not worship as they chose.
They envisioned a government that did not pay for the trappings of religions such as displays of a religious nature. A people who were not persuaded by government action to feel compelled into or toward any religion or particular religion. Thus they envisioned a government that would not use Tax dollars to do anything that would promote religiousness, and particularly not promote any one religious idea or ceremony over any other.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Looks like I was correct and now you're just attempting to build a bigger straw man, to counter the perceived straw man that you think was made.
Words have meaning - use your words.
Looks like I was correct and now you're just attempting to build a bigger straw man, to counter the perceived straw man that you think was made.
Words have meaning - use your words.
So where does it say "mandatory?" Use your words. You offer nothing to the discussion.
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrances against Religious Assessments makes his intentions quite clear. The religious assessment in question did not "make a religion mandatory" but still it was seen by Madison and others, who carried the day, to violate religious liberty because it used the force of government for the support of religion, in general.
The only arguments from the founders to support your position are from John Jay and Patrick Henry, i.e., the losers on this question.
You have given me mixed, unrelated, and disjointed statements from a website for teachers, and a truncated version of the debates that lasted months. You do know that Everson won, right?
They are mutually exclusive. There was no wall of separation, and Black used in the ruling Madison’s writings in the Memorial and Remonstrances of 1785, and Jeffeson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, and neither on have a bearing on the intent of the establishment clause, and what Madison and Jefferson wrote prior and post Bill of Rights have no relevance on a court’s ruling on the Constitution.
Your quote by Madison also demonstrates his intent was only limited to establishing a national religion, which is my argument, and the “compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience” is from his experience as a young man and Baptists being jailed for violating Virginia’s established religion of Anglican.
Regarding the necessary and proper clause, the states feared that the Congress would try to establish a national religion through the necessary and proper clause. One of the state’s reasons for the establishment clause was to prevent the Congress from using the necessary and proper clause to force the states to not be able to have state sponsored religions.
If you want to use the wall of separation, then you will have to prove what Jefferson’s intent was in his Danbury letter, and you will not be able to prove it to match your views. But the letter and Jefferson have no bearing on the intent of the establishment clause.
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrances had nothing to do with the establishment clause's intent.
That is not what they envisioned. They passed an amendment that at its most basic foundation, prevented the Congress, and only the Congress from making a law establishing a national religion, and not interfere with the state's rights to have a state sponsored religion by cutting the necessary and proper clause out of the equation. Tax dollars were used immediately in support of religions and the Bible, Christian prayers continued in the government along with Christian chaplains paid by tax dollars.