APP - “One Nation Under God”

Watermark said:
No, it wasn't. CRU is one of several organizations COMPILING climate data, and they get THEIR information from OTHER SOURCES. When they talked about deleting data, they were talking about data that had been deleted in the 80's before they had ever arrived. If you want the data they have, go to the people THEY GOT IT FROM.
Click to expand...

Get your warmer mythology off this post...although it is about as proven as god.
 
Socrtease said:
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!
Click to expand...

Soc, what are you going to do with SM now that you own him?

lol

:cof1:
 
Socrtease said:
Get your warmer mythology off this post...although it is about as proven as god.
Click to expand...

You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence for global warming but do not expect to do so without me calling you on your bullshit. If you want to keep AGW out of this thread, do not lie about it in this thread.

You deniers are just like the intelligent design community, making claims without evidence and ignoring overwhelming evidence that completely and totally debunks your pathetic conspiracy theories.
 
Socrtease said:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3597

(This Article is from one of SM's own state citizens. One far more educated than he.)

By Dr. Troy Kickler

From biographies to sweeping narratives, from readable pop history to dry-as-dust academic publications, books exploring the lives of the Founding Fathers increasingly are being published.

One misunderstood aspect of the Founding Era is the role that religion played. Conversing recently with a rigid secularist who has utmost faith in human reason, (a throwback to the French Enlightenment), I heard that “Not one Founding Father was a Christian!” A few months earlier I talked with a churchgoing fundamentalist (a throwback outside of Middle America) who supposed the Founding Fathers believed similarly to his KJV-only pastor.

But the reality is more complicated. David L. Holmes, in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, argues that America’s first patriots were non-Christian deists, Christian deists, or orthodox Christians. Although many Deists considered essential tenets of Christianity, such as the trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection as myths, irreconcilable with human reason, most maintained denominational affiliations; and in spite of their anti-clericalism, some even regularly attended church services. As historian Mark Noll concludes, most were “Deist-like — but not exactly.”

At the Continental Congress were also many orthodox Christians such as John Jay, whom John Adams considered a “church-going animal” and believer in divine revelation and dispensation. What united the three groups, Holmes writes, was their belief in a guiding Providence and eternal life, the importance of virtue and Jesus’ ethical teachings, and love of religious freedom and hatred of tyranny.

Holmes provides a good start in understanding a complex history, but an in-depth discussion of how American thinkers differed from their Radical Enlightenment counterparts is needed.

Unlike Voltaire and Rousseau, the skeptical Enlightenment, including Montesquieu and the Founding Fathers, respected traditions and the religious core of Western Civilization. Without acknowledging how the Old West shaped American thought, writes Russell Kirk, one cannot understand the cardinal ideas of American civilization: justice, order, and freedom.

It is indeed impossible to understand them without knowing that American republicanism placed classical and Renaissance ideas within the context of Augustinian Christianity and wrapped Lockean ideas of liberty around the Christian idea of covenants. Does this mean the Founders were Christians? Not necessarily. It means that their times influenced them, that they respected Christianity, and that the language of Christendom gives meaning and understanding to American political and social values.

The debate usually omits two other essential aspects. One, the Founding Fathers comprised an intellectual elite who represented a religious and many times zealous majority that checked any notions to establish an entirely secular government. The traveling French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the importance of religion to average Americans and recorded that “on the seventh day of every week the trading and working life of the nation seems suspended.”

Two, modern Americans with statist assumptions forget that America was created as a federalism of states, united only for the purposes expressed in the Constitution. Most private matters remained to the states to decide, and within them, people controlled most of their private lives.

The Constitution does not mention God or religion and bans religious tests in Article VI because federalists considered religion a matter best decided by individuals and their states. Many state constitutions preceded the federal one, and those and new ones sometimes retained a mild form of religious establishment and many times explicit religious qualifications for public office.

When public opinion changed within a state, new state constitutions or amendments were drafted, as evidenced by the 1835 modification to the religious qualifications for office holders in North Carolina from “Protestant” to “Christian” and the exclusion of only “atheists” from public office in the 1868 constitution. Not until 1961 did the U.S. Supreme Court decide that such restrictions in the states were unconstitutional.

Long story short: Serious and in-depth inquiry concerning the extent of religious influence during the Founding Era is necessary to understand the times as they were.

Dr. Troy Kickler is director of the North Carolina History Project.
Click to expand...

You could describe most highly intelligent people the same way but the conclusion is purely speculation. I consider myself a devout Catholic but have several disagreements with The Church and have my own ideas of prayer and worship. Someone could easily describe me as a deist based on that, but that's not how I describe myself.
 
Socrtease said:
And here is where SM loses outright and the argument is over. This is from the Wikipedia site for the North Carolina Constitution:

At least two provisions, carried over from the 1868 Constitution, are not enforced either because they are known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court.

Article 6, section 8 disqualifies from office any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. This article was carried over verbatim from the 1868 Constitution. However, in 1961, the federal Supreme Court, in Torcaso v. Watkins threw out a similar provision in the Maryland Constitution on the grounds that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The First Amendment bars Congress from passing any law "respecting an establishment of religion," and this provision has long been considered binding on the states under the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, it has never been enforced. This provision was explicitly challenged and overturned by Vosswinkel v. Hunt, 1979.

This provision, while is is still on the books was overturned by NORTH CAROLINA COURTS in 1979. The reason it is still on the books is that the language has never been amended because there has been no Constitutional Convention sense it was struck down in 1979.

Game, Set and Match Constitutitard! All hail SM King of the Constitutitards!
Click to expand...

Again, I give little if no credence on judicial precedence, and instead look at the Founder's intentions and plain-language interpretation. Court decisions are more often than not decided based on which side has the more expensive legal representation.
 
Watermark said:
You can continue to deny the overwhelming evidence for global warming but do not expect to do so without me calling you on your bullshit. If you want to keep AGW out of this thread, do not lie about it in this thread.

You deniers are just like the intelligent design community, making claims without evidence and ignoring overwhelming evidence that completely and totally debunks your pathetic conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...


Warmers, like you, should be boiled in oil.
 
Southern Man said:
You obviously spend a good deal of your life wishing and hoping that you will someday win a debate with me. Your continued disappointment is very amusing to me. :lol:
Click to expand...

Not so long ago I kicked your ass on this very topic.
 
SM your STATE court, an arm of your oh so precious state sovereign, the one empowered by the people of north carolina struck down the relgious test. A state court said it unconstitutional. YOU LOSE. You argued so forcefully that it would stand the test of time but it was struck down in 1979! Not by some federal court but by your own state and your legislature has abided by it. You were talking out your ass the WHOLE time. Damo and Winterborn BOTH schooled you on this topic and a court of your state agreed with them 30 years ago!
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I give little if no credence on judicial precedence, and instead look at the Founder's intentions and plain-language interpretation. Court decisions are more often than not decided based on which side has the more expensive legal representation.
Click to expand...
Ok just a few posts ago you said that the State of North Carolina would expend more money than anyone willing to challenge the provision thus overturning all of the past precidence. But...OMG you were wrong because 30 years ago the case was litigated and the STATE lost. All that money I guess didn't matter a bit.
 
Southern Man said:
Its the ACLU you should be embarrassed for. Why have they not come after the State of North Carolina. This law has been on the books for centuries, and has survived several re-writes of the State Constitution.

Instead they go after small local governments over Christmas tree displays.

The answer, of course, is that they know that they will lose, erasing the prior rulings. :)
Click to expand...
This is what is SOOO funny. Mr Authority arguing out of his ASSSSS when the State had already lost this matter 30 years ago.
 
Socrtease said:
SM your STATE court, an arm of your oh so precious state sovereign, the one empowered by the people of north carolina struck down the relgious test. A state court said it unconstitutional. YOU LOSE. You argued so forcefully that it would stand the test of time but it was struck down in 1979! Not by some federal court but by your own state and your legislature has abided by it. You were talking out your ass the WHOLE time. Damo and Winterborn BOTH schooled you on this topic and a court of your state agreed with them 30 years ago!
Click to expand...
Again, a simple majority of a court decided against a poorly defended case, and the Legislature (you know, the folks elected by the People) left the language in, basically telling the court to pound sand. :)
 
Socrtease said:
Ok just a few posts ago you said that the State of North Carolina would expend more money than anyone willing to challenge the provision thus overturning all of the past precidence. But...OMG you were wrong because 30 years ago the case was litigated and the STATE lost. All that money I guess didn't matter a bit.
Click to expand...
The language is still there. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Again, a simple majority of a court decided against a poorly defended case, and the Legislature (you know, the folks elected by the People) left the language in, basically telling the court to pound sand. :)
Click to expand...
Bullshit. You know nothing about your State Constitution or how language is removed. A court ruling cannot remove a provision of your states consitution. It must be removed during a constitutional rewrite, the last of which occurred in your state in 1971, 8 before a NC State court struck it down. Soooo you fail again. You really aren't just a Federal Constitutitard, you are a State Constitutitard as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top