What I learned on Nov. 6th 2012

[stick1]

[quote name='HvyMtl' timestamp='1352325872' post='841359']
We were never considered a Christian-Judeo nation, even by the Founding Fathers. See the Treaty of Tripoli, written in 1796, approved by the 2nd President, a certain John Adams.
See the treaty's article 11.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Treaty_of_Tripoli_as_communicated_to_Congress_1797.png"]http://en.wikipedia....ngress_1797.png[/url]

This misconception is a more recent creation.
[/quote] This has never been evidence of secular nation, it has been tried to ,but this was also superceded later by the Treaty of Peace and Amity 1805. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 casts a whole different picture than what you bring with a treaty between 2 nations . The MC was an agreement of "founding fathers" fathers if you will.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352411087' post='842035']
But why is it against God's will to have O in the White House?

That was the purposeof this thread. God is on Romney's side.
I'm asking why y'all believe that.


Did you not read the thread?
The assertion is taking God out of government is destroying us. An example used to prove that we have always been a Christian nation is "in God we trust". That wasn't added until 1957. The term's origination is irrelevant.





It really doesn't matter what out Founders were. What matters is what they fought for, said in their own words put in writing.



How is removing your God from government destroying your principles. Rhetorical question.
The only answer to this is that you need the government to tell you what your principles are. And if the government can no longer tell you what your principles are, then your principles are destroyed.
[/quote]
We tell government what to do when we send candidates to office. We have been doing it badly for a long time. The
government isn't supposed to run us. That's a pitiful misconception you have. We got the government we voted for.

Being inspired from something is not the same as being part of, when mentioning God or anything else.

[strickj]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1352484613' post='842560']
We tell government what to do when we send candidates to office. We have been doing it badly for a long time. The
government isn't supposed to run us. That's a pitiful misconception you have. We got the government we voted for.


[/quote]
Huh?

Demanding religion to be removed from government does not mean that I want government controlling us.
Quite the opposite actually. I do not want the government controlling, sponsoring and showing preference to any religion.
Just like that pesky First Amendment says...

[Smith]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352489672' post='842601']
Huh?

Demanding religion to be removed from government does not mean that I want government controlling us.
Quite the opposite actually. I do not want the government controlling, sponsoring and showing preference to any religion.
Just like that pesky First Amendment says...


[/quote]

Freedom "of". Not freedom "from".

[strickj]

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352490116' post='842604']
Freedom "of". Not freedom "from".
[/quote]
American taliban.

read the Establishment Clause. The First has been interpreted the same way since Jefferson wrote "separation of church and state".

From Cornel Law
[quote]The [url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti"]First Amendment's[/url] Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.[/quote]

This is not opinion.

[Smith]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352490524' post='842608']
American taliban.

read the Establishment Clause. The First has been interpreted the same way since Jefferson wrote "separation of church and state".

From Cornel Law


This is not opinion.
[/quote]

Yeah, it's been so oppressive here for so long.
Strickj, we've been over this and your Cornell intepretatio quote via wikipedia does not an agrument make. Why not just quote Sotomayor.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352491046' post='842611']
Yeah, it's been so oppressive here for so long.
Strickj, we've been over this and your Cornell intepretatio quote via wikipedia does not an agrument make. Why not just quote Sotomayor.
[/quote]I guess it's ironclad fact which cannot be rationally disputed if you like what some law school or professor or SCOTUS justice says; it's simply opinion if you don't like it.

[strickj]

That's not from Wiki. That's directly from Cornell Law University.
perhaps you would like to choose your own source: [url="https://www.google.com/search?q=estiblshment+clause&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=5hb&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&spell=1&q=establishment+clause&sa=X&psj=1&ei=oWWdUJf-K4qi8gSIiICIDg&ved=0CDAQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=c3f3e5f3c724b693&bpcl=38093640&biw=1252&bih=603"]https://www.google.c...iw=1252&bih=603[/url]

Or perhaps you would like to continue to degrade my accredited source while not providing anything but an opinion from yourself... Edited November 9, 2012 by strickj

[Smith]

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352491046' post='842611']
Yeah, it's been so oppressive here for so long.
[b]Strickj, we've been over this [/b]and your Cornell intepretatio quote via wikipedia does not an agrument make. Why not just quote Sotomayor.
[/quote]

No need to to rehash it here.

[RobertNashville]

It's still just a law professor's opinion of what the 1A actually says....I'd bet the same guy would say the 2A only applies to formal militias and isn't an individual right; would you quote him then?

Oh wait...why am I arguing with you...I should know better. ROTFL

[strickj]

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352492783' post='842629']
No need to to rehash it here.
[/quote]
You bash my links. Do not provide credible information in return. Then, THEN tell me there's no reason to rehash it? I get it.

[quote]It's still just a law professor's opinion of what the 1A actually says[/quote]
No, it isn't. Fron the "father of the First Amendment":
[quote]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[/quote]
Stated while sitting president. Held fast for over 200 years.
It is not just a modern day heathen opinion.

[Smith]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352493775' post='842637']
Stated while sitting president. Held fast for over 200 years.
It is not just a modern day heathen opinion.
[/quote]

Re-read that Strickj. He says "establishment". Until recently that has been intepreted as the govenement not "establishing" a state denomitnation. Thus, the first part of that quote. "Between man and his God" hardly sounds like " between man and his God or lack thereof."

[Guest 6.8 AR]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352489672' post='842601']
Huh?

Demanding religion to be removed from government does not mean that I want government controlling us.
Quite the opposite actually. I do not want the government controlling, sponsoring and showing preference to any religion.
Just like that pesky First Amendment says...


[/quote]"The only answer to this is that you need the government to tell you what your principles are. And if the government can no longer tell you what your principles are, then your principles are destroyed."
That's what I was responding to. your words. I don't need the government telling me anything about my beliefs, either,
but I will stick to how the government was originally inspired. That doesn't mean there is some state church or anything
like it. No one is saying there is preference in there, but that doesn't preclude what brought it to life.

[RobertNashville]

So quoting a personal letter, not the Constitution, makes it a matter of law for you? Really???

I would say you are being extremely selective, to the point of being a contortionist, in picking what citations to use.

[strickj]

[quote name='AK Guy' timestamp='1352494947' post='842642']
Re-read that Strickj. He says "establishment". Until recently that has been intepreted as the govenement not "establishing" a state denomitnation. Thus, the first part of that quote. "Between man and his God" hardly sounds like " between man and his God or lack thereof."
[/quote]
Maybe you should reread it. It doesn't say "establishing a religion".
It says "make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Again, 200 years of case law trumps your opinion.

Did you click the google search link for the Establishment Clause?

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1352495222' post='842646']
So quoting a personal letter, not the Constitution, makes it a matter of law for you? Really???

I would say you are being extremely selective, to the point of being a contortionist, in picking what citations to use.
[/quote]
Seriously?
I quoted the letter in which Jefferson, the father of the First Amendment, gave his and the Founders' intent of the First Amen. after you said that the Cornel Law link was simply a modern interpenetration.

Stop "ROFFl" and degrading accredited sources and try to keep up...

[strickj]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352495442' post='842649']
Maybe you should reread it. It doesn't say "establishing a religion".
It says "make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Again, 200 years of case law trumps your opinion.

Did you click the google search link for the Establishment Clause?
[/quote]
just to make it easier for you to not read....
[quote]

[url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/author/firstamendmentcenter"]First Amendment Center[/url]
Nashville, Tenn.
Friday, September 16, 2011
The first of the First Amendment’s two religion clauses reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … .” Note that the clause is absolute. It allows [i]no[/i] law. It is also noteworthy that the clause forbids more than the establishment of religion by the government. It forbids even laws [i]respecting[/i] an establishment of religion. The establishment clause sets up a line of demarcation between the functions and operations of the institutions of religion and government in our society. It does so because the framers of the First Amendment recognized that when the roles of the government and religion are intertwined, the result too often has been bloodshed or oppression.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/establishment-clause
[/quote]

[quote]
March 11, 2002
[b] An ACLU Legal Bulletin[/b]


[b] The Establishment Clause And Public Schools[/b]



These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans. Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Supreme Court has stated that the Establishment Clause was intended to accomplish this end by erecting a "wall of separation between Church and State." Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947).
It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961). [url="http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/establishment-clause-and-schools-legal-bulletin"]http://www.aclu.org/...-legal-bulletin[/url]
[/quote]


[quote]

[b] establishment clause[/b]
or [b]establishment-of-religion clause[/b]
Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. [url="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Constitution+of+the+United+States"]Constitution[/url] forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.
For more information on [url="http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Destablishment%2Bclause&source=Britannica"]establishment clause[/url], visit Britannica.com. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1994-2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

[/quote]

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352495855' post='842657']
Seriously?
I quoted the letter in which Jefferson, the father of the First Amendment, gave his and the Founders' intent of the First Amen. after you said that the Cornel Law link was simply a modern interpenetration.

Stop "ROFFl" and degrading accredited sources and try to keep up...
[/quote]I'm familiar with the letter and have copies of most of Jefferson's writings; I'm keeping up just fine.

That letter has been used for decades by those who want no religions input of any kind into public policy; it's most especially loved by atheists who want to be free of all religious expression of any kind from any quarter, public or private. Using that letter to promote such ideas shows a singular lack of understanding of the desires that drove our founder's ancestors to this continent as well as a lack of understanding of the principles the nation was eventually founded by the decedents of those ancestors.

It's all academic anyway - every semblance of the Godly principles and attributes this country was founded on as well as what this country was intended to be as envisioned by the founders is gone anyway...the people have decided that morals and principles have no relevance in today's world...God has been replaced by Obama and a government food stamp debit card.

[Smith]

Here you go Strickj.
[url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/"]http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/2011/07/09/the-true-meaning-of-separation-of-church-and-state/[/url]

[strickj]

Robert; I'm not an Atheist and I'm not looking to remove religious expression.
[quote]That letter has been used for decades by those who want no religions input of any kind into public policy;[/quote]
You're damn skippy! And why do you think that is?
Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious opinion?
Your religious opinion is infringing on my rights to not be governed by the church.
And, for the question that is always ignored, how would you feel if the law said you could not eat pork or womens had to keep their hair covered?
Yeah, that would be considered unconstitutional because it's not your religious opinion that;s being legislated.


AK, that is an opinion piece. How about something.... let's say.... legal?
I have quoted from Cornell Law, The ACLU, The First Amendment Center in Nashville, and the Britannica Encyclopedia. Not including quoting the First and Jefferson's very own words.

Thanks. Edited November 9, 2012 by strickj

[Smith]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352498476' post='842702']
Robert; I'm not an Atheist and I'm not looking to remove religious expression.

You're damn skippy! And why do you think that is?
Why do you feel the need to legislate your religious opinion?
Your religious opinion is infringing on my rights to not be governed by the church.
And, for the question that is always ignored, how would you feel if the law said you could not eat pork or womens had to keep their hair covered?
Yeah, that would be considered unconstitutional because it's not your religious opinion that;s being legislated.


AK, that is an opinion piece. How about something.... let's say.... legal?
I have quoted from Cornell Law, The ACLU, The First Amendment Center in Nashville, and the Britannica Encyclopedia. Not including quoting the First and Jefferson's very own words.

Thanks.
[/quote]

Easy trigger. You know very well we won't see eye to eye on this no matter how much either presents. We've already presented the same stuff over and over and I was trying to avoid that in yet another thread, but alas here we are. I'm fine with that and pretty sure you are too.

As far as legal rulings, there aren't any that have to do with the premise you or I layed out, which is the intent of our foundation. All the legal rulings are on specific issues where religion and government crossed. There are cases that speak to both. The ACLU, Cornell, and all the rest you posted ARE in fact opinion pieces on those rulings as well as interpretations of what those rulings inteded and meant and the reprecussion they hold.

The reason you and some others believe that my postion is a farily new one is becasue the base understaning has always been (until recently) not in contention. It has only been recent that the base understanding needed a defense from new concepts. Much like the current 2a debates.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352498476' post='842702']...[/quote]Never said and never insinuated you were an atheist; just making note that atheists use the same sources and similar arguments for their position.

I've never said we should legislate my or any other religious opinion nor am I suggesting that your rights should be governed by the church or any church nor do I want such - I'm not sure what made you think otherwise. I'm very happy that the first amendment prevents the Federal government from mandating religion on people just as I'm equally happy that the first amendment protects my religion from government intrusion (at least it did...it doesn't do so as much any more).

As for the "the question that is always ignored"; since I'm not advocating for nor do I want the government to dictate such things the question is moot. If my church dictated such things and I freely chose to be part of that church I would have no problem with such requirements.

If the ACLU is an authoritative source for you then I suggest you spend much more time studying Jefferson's writings and biographies...and in a few years, once you are done with him, there are many more founders worth of real study. Edited November 9, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote]f the ACLU is an authoritative source for you then I suggest you s[b]pend much more time studying Jefferson's writing[/b]s and biographies...and in a few years, once you are done with him, there are many more founders worth of real study. [/quote]
The ACLU was one of many.

[b]The man's won words:[/b]

[quote]Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [/quote]

What did I miss? What did he say contrary to that, that you have failed to provide for us?

[Smith]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1352506070' post='842778']
What did I miss? What did he say contrary to that, that you have failed to provide for us?
[/quote]

Context.

[Seabeejason]

This song sums my opinion up nicely.


[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=esnSbBuf9f4[/media] Edited November 11, 2012 by Seabeejason