Printable View
What does that even mean?
If any religion can be backed up by evidence, then it's no different to any other belief, right? So you can't oppose it. Or maybe religions are just faith.
In any case, only anatheistsorry - agnostic (irreligious) president would be constitutional, since nobody can stop their beliefs from affecting the way they lead.
Is there a legal definition of "religion"?
Legal definition of religion? Obviously.
Secondly, NO religion can be backed up by evidence (that is pretty much a prerequisite to any religion. Not by law, but simply because it is). Please name me a religion backed by evidence (hint: bible is not evidence). Secondly, you can still oppose something if it is backed by evidence... Thirdly, Yes... yes you CAN stop your bleiefs from affecting the way you lead. I don't care if we have a Christian president as long as Christianity plays no part in his presidency. Say he makes a decision on abortion. Of course it has to be done on moral grounds, but it should be done on universal moral grounds, not christian ones. Stem cells, for example, when not looked at from a Christian view, are so obviously the right thing. Yet people reject it because of Christainity.
You seem to entirely misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state... it basically means that religions cannot influence the government (generally vice versa too, I believe, but the primary focus is the former way). That is, no religious undertones in the government... but obviously separation of church and state is no longer respected (was it ever?). "In God We Trust." "One nation, under god..." An agnostic still has a belief (that there is no way to know), so in your logic, nobody is constitutionally eligible to lead (because everybody has a belief that has to do with theism). An agnostic is not "irreligious." Agnostic seems to be such a commonly misunderstood word... An agnostic can, technically, a fundamental christian. Or a hardcore atheist. I am a 100% atheist... but still 100% agnostic as well.
It is the mark of a good president to be able to not have his or her beliefs affect the way that they lead. No doubt that some of their decisions will reflect their beliefs... but nowadays Bush blatantly opposes gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc. simply because the Bible tells him to. I like Obama because though I am not sure his beliefs (I believe he is atheist), he guarantees to be a nonsecular president. Nonsecular is the keyword. I do not want a Christian president, a jewish president, an agnostic president... maybe not even an atheist president (okay, I'm lying there, I do in truth), I want a nonsecular president. Religion doesn't even play a part. It shouldn't!
But at any rate, this debate doesn't even matter because (by the way, assuming that we are talking about separation of church and state in the US) the separation of church and state is a joke now in the eyes of the constitution and government.
thats like saying every Christian is a fundamentalist and that they all think the same regarding hot topics like evolution
but that just isn't true. regardless of a persons religion, people think for themselves and choose to believe in what they believe
look at the history of the US. it would be a lie to say that religious morality did not play a role in the foundation of this country. The forefathers felt people had 'God given rights' that no country, no pope, no church, no state had the right to take away. That is partly why we have the phrase under God - they felt this country was 'authorized' by God
however, do not make the mistake of thinking that God = church. That was the very reason why they said Separation of Church and State. They weren't idiots. They knew that the Church would try to rule and control people as it did in Europe. The Church is not synomanous with God. It should not dictate over those God given rights. It is a human organization.
It was felt that these God given rights were not created nor mandated by people. Therefore it was very necessary to separate the Church, which claims to have a monopoly of God, with State which doesn't make that claim.
While people have argued that the forefathers were not Christians *some were atheist?* I still feel God played an important role. On a spiritual level I also feel the Holy Spirit played an important role as well, it goes where it deems necessary and Church did not have the right to say that only the Church can speak through the Holy Spirit. I feel, on a spiritual level, God did mandate the US as a way of saying "you have freedoms that no one has the right to take away from you, not even your churches". The forefathers tuned into this truth, regardless of their religious background. That is how the Holy Spirit works.
To say that politicians can't act out of their beliefs is silly and childish. Some of the greatest moments and movements in American history were brought by politicians with strong beliefs. Lets name one. . .Martin Luther King Jr.
People like him carried out the same spirit as the forefathers, that there are God given rights. It was not political propaganda to promote his Church.
Today, there are a lot of issues - stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, and so on and we haven't come to a happy consensus yet. That is because we have fundamentalists today, who are afraid of science. At the other end, we have people with no morality who feel the country should not enforce morality as well.
Well, both parties are wrong. Not only will the nation continue to enforce morality, since it comes from something much higher than Church, it will also continue scientific progress. So those of us here that want to have an abortion left and right, countless times, without a care, shut up and close your legs. It is just as morally wrong for the government to take control over a womans body, as it is morally wrong for the woman to disrespect her own body.
Fail #1 for the US:
- Having a single leader in the position and powers that the president currently has.
-----
SW Episode 1-3 much?
Except the current president is basically jar jar :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Yes.
Merely Palpatine using a Jar-Jar sock puppet in this case.
Well, ok then, so leaders aren't allowed to make decisions that can't be backed up by evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Code:Christian Point Of View
Universal Moral Grounds = Christian Moral Grounds.
I thought agnostic meant "I don't know" (otherwise known as lack of belief). So WTF would a person who doesn't know be a fundamentalist christian? Is someone who doesn't know if there is a god going to kill for it? Or stone people because of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
BTW: Assume I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about, since I do not live in America.
[quote=RedfishBluefish;753839]Well, ok then, so leaders aren't allowed to make decisions that can't be backed up by evidence?
Leaders can't make decisions which don't have some sort of backing to them other than a religious one. I hope you aren't trying to pose these questions as if they are fallacies in my argument (if that were the case they are simply fallacies in your understanding of my argument ;))
You thought wrong... that's not what agnostic means.Quote:
I thought agnostic meant "I don't know" (otherwise known as lack of belief). So WTF would a person who doesn't know be a fundamentalist christian? Is someone who doesn't know if there is a god going to kill for it? Or stone people because of it?
BTW: Assume I haven't got the slightest idea what I'm talking about, since I do not live in America.
Well I just find it bizarre that so many people are encouraged to hold (illogical) beliefs with no evidence to them, while having laws stating that leaders aren't allowed to make their decisions based on those beliefs (ones with no evidence!).
Religion is "great", "inspiring", "brings love", but... causes bad government (and all other decisions too)?
BTW - assume I wasn't talking about "Permanant Agnostic in Principle"s
I have aways assumed it was a figure of speech for the concept of no civil authority over religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish
One can reasonable argue -using the first three common law "rules of construction" -that the word "religion" in the U. S. Constitution means "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it."Quote:
Is there a legal definition of "religion"?
Someone created a DV account just to post on the insanity that is R/S. These are dark times.
Well, it's Mick Jagger so that's a plus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
Or is it?...
The comment was way too left brained for the real Mick Jagger. Mick would say something like, "Hey baby, it means we should like just love God but not be pigs and stuff, yeah baby."Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
When did the Supreme Court ever say "you are not free to exercise your religion if atheists or members of non-Christian religions say that they are offended?"Quote:
Over the years, liberal judges have twisted the First Amendment's phrase about "free exercise of religion" to mean the opposite — that you are not free to exercise your religion if atheists or members of non-Christian religions say that they are offended.
--Thomas Sowell
If you're referring to the Pledge of Allegiance, then you're way off base. The Pledge wasn't written until 1892, and has only had the words "Under God" in it since 1954 under the Eisenhower administration. The inspiration for it's addition came from the Lincoln Gettysburg Address from 1863, still 87 years after the US achieved independence and nothing to do with the founding fathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Personally I consider that a breach of the separation of church and state, and Eisenhower acted inappropriately in pushing for its addition to the Pledge. At least 10% of the US doesn't believe in the God it's referring to and a further 8-10% don't believe in any god at all.
The US was not founded as a Christian or a religious nation but rather on freedom from oppression by religion. Not only was any mention of God left out of our constitution, but any attempt to consider language that included God was summarily voted down.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
The following quotes by our founding fathers will hopefully help dispell any myth that they had God-itis.
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
- Benjamin Franklin
This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
- John Adams
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
- Thomas Jefferson
What has been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
- James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785
There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.
- George Washington
In 1796, President John Adams signed into law The Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli and Barbary and read it aloud to the nation. Article 11 of the treaty reads:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. [emphasis mine]The senate approved it unanimously.
So please, stop trying to convince us that wording created in the '50s (for the pledge) is evidence of what our nation is founded upon. Our founding fathers were long since dead and rotting (spinning, in this case) in their graves. Next time, try the constitution... our nation's founding document.
Where does the Constitution say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
The USA really started out quite cool (in fact, much cooler than some Western countries even today) but it went to complete shits with the uprising of Christianity and most of the country just dumping a fat turd on the constitution (forced 12-step anyone?).
The Constitution of Iran officially recognizes Christianity. The Religious Right should move to that country.
The first ammendment tells us that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Ratified in 1791
That's where. There are many letters and other writings by Jefferson and other founding fathers clarifying their position on this. Their intent is quite clear. If you wish me to post pertinent excerpts of these letters, just ask and I will.
Right here, in the First AmendmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
edit: Sup skysaw, tag-teaming ITT.
I read you to say that the Constitution's text does not actually say, "The US was... founded...on freedom from oppression by religion."Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
The First Amendment implies that the government was granted general unlimited power over religion in the Original Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Where did you get the notion that the lawmakers made the Constituton with the understanding that it would be construed according to "letters and other writings by Jefferson and other founding fathers clarifying their position?"Quote:
There are many letters and other writings by Jefferson and other founding fathers clarifying their position on this.
I thought "the fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law." (see Blackstone's Commentaries)Quote:
Their intent is quite clear. If you wish me to post pertinent excerpts of these letters, just ask and I will.
I'm not a native speaker so excuse this question... In "no law respecting an establishment of religion" does "respecting" mean "having respect for" or "regarding"?
It means "regarding."Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
You read incorrectly. I did not say it used precisely those words, but I supplied words that support the same effect. If laws cannot be made in regard to religion, religion cannot oppress because it has no leg to stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
TimelineQuote:
The First Amendment implies that the government was granted general unlimited power over religion in the Original Constitution.
US Constitution: 1787
First Ammendment: 1791
Wow... it seems that the entire constitution got flipped on its head in only three short years! But no, any intelligent person can figure out why the first ammendment was added. It was to clarify the nation's position on the matter for people like you. In any case, 1791 sure as hell beats 1954 as a founder's intent, wouldn't you agree?
I offered the letters to show you their intent, not to be interpreted by law. Those who do the interpreting generally have a better grasp of it than you do. But we can leave them out if you like, the point still stands.Quote:
Where did you get the notion that the lawmakers made the Constituton with the understanding that it would be construed according to "letters and other writings by Jefferson and other founding fathers clarifying their position?"
Oh wait... perhaps we should take back your last statement and my response... Now you do want to explore the intentions at the time the law was made. Hence my reference to letters which explained them in plain English.Quote:
I thought "the fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law." (see Blackstone's Commentaries)
Perhaps you should have made it clear that you were giving your interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
The Constitution doesn't actually say "in regard to religion."Quote:
If laws cannot be made in regard to religion, religion cannot oppress because it has no leg to stand on.
What exactly was unclear in the Original Constitution with respect to religion?Quote:
Timeline
US Constitution: 1787
First Ammendment: 1791
Wow... it seems that the entire constitution got flipped on its head in only three short years! But no, any intelligent person can figure out why the first ammendment was added. It was to clarify the nation's position on the matter for people like you.
Where did the lawmakers indicate that their will at the time they made the Constitution was to be gathered from anything other than what was admissible under the common law "rules of construction?"Quote:
I offered the letters to show you their intent.
What rules and principles guide those (with a better grasp) when they interpret the Constitution?Quote:
Those who do the interpreting generally have a better grasp of it than you do. But we can leave them out if you like, the point still stands.
Now you do want to explore the intentions at the time the law was made. [/quote] That's what the common law "rules of construction" say we're supposed to do. The lawmakers, according to the historical evidence, probably wanted us use the "rules of construction."
What rules and principles, if any, did you use to select the letters from which to gather the meaning of the Constitution?Quote:
Hence my reference to letters which explained them in plain English.
Show us where the lawmakers ever indicated or even suggested that the meaning of the Constitution should be gathered from what someone, who wasn't even one of the lawmakers, wrote over a decade after the Constitution was made.Quote:
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.
- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
I humbly recommend that you consider taking the time to learn and master the common law "rules of construction." Otherwise, I don't believe you'll ever be able to correctly, or rather objectively, ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution.
I think l like you interpretation of the Constitution. However, your methodology, in my humble view, is unsound. Have you ever considered the possibility that both sides of the public debate regarding church and state are wrong to assume the Constitution was constructed to be interpreted according to an analysis of the wittings and actions of the founders, unless those writings and actions are admissible under the "rules of construction?"
The first rule of construction informs us that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Korittke
Words [in a legal instrument] are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use...terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science... where words are clearly repugnant in two laws, the later law takes place of the elder...
--Blackstone's Commentaries
If the meaning of the word is still "dubious", move on to the second rule.
Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
The will of the lawmakers are spoken by the lawmakers themselves in letters and writings about the laws. If the will is important, that's where it is.
If the will is not important, then the letter of the law also supports my argument in the first ammendment. You ask why we need the first ammendment to separate church and state, but whatever the need, it is there in plain English in the first ammendment.
But all of this is only a distraction from the original claim: that America was founded as a Christian nation. I haven't seen any evidence supplied by you or anyone else to support this. Care to share some?
"To interrogate the legislature to decide particular disputes [regarding the meaning of a legal instrument], is not only endless, but affords great room for partiality and oppression." The "most natural and probable signs" of the the will of the legislature at the time it made a legal instrument "are the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law." (see Blackstone's Commentaries)Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
It is very important. However, your method of ascertaining it is not the method the lawmakers meant for us to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Huh? "argument in the first amendment?" What does that mean?Quote:
the letter of the law also supports my argument in the first ammendment. You ask why we need the first ammendment to separate church and state, but whatever the need, it is there in plain English in the first ammendment.
The phrase "America was founded as a Christian nation" is a very ambiguous statement. I don't debate ambiguous statements.Quote:
But all of this is only a distraction from the original claim: that America was founded as a Christian nation. I haven't seen any evidence supplied by you or anyone else to support this. Care to share some?
Define the word "America" and the term "Christian Nation", so I know exactly what is being asserted.
Thanks for yet again misunderstanding my post. I answered a point you directed at me, to wit: "I don't believe you'll ever be able to correctly, or rather objectively, ascertain the will of the lawmakers at the time they made the Constitution." I showed you why your assumption was incorrect, but did not say then or ever that such writings would or should trump the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
Here's an idea. How about you type up some of your own thoughts instead of repeatedly suggesting that we "see Blackstone's Commentaries?" Give the control and V keys a break and start using some of the other ones.
And if you get around to it, I'm still waiting on any supporting evidence that the nation was founded as a religious nation.
This is hilarious. Mick Jagger, this is not a very controversial subject. America, for the most part, was founded as a country primarily free from religion or for other propietary or economic policies. Without going to into detail about it, Jamestown was first founded in 1607 as a solely economic venture. New England was primarily founded in an effort to escape religious persecution (ironically Maryland was founded by the Calvert's who were Catholics and founded it as a refuge for catholics, but in order to draw interest, they brought in more Protestants who eventually subjugated the catholics). I don't know what history book you are reading, but the colonies were initially founded to escape religious persecution or economic or proprietary reasons. Your vast ignorance of the subject is shown in the fact that you said "where does it say we are not a religious nation." Um, as said, first amendment and separation of church and state.
If you're saying that the common law rules of construction, not historical analysis, should guide our interpretation of the text of the Constitution, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
The lawmakers had Blackstone's book in their hands when they made the Constitution. You should have it your hands when you interpret it.Quote:
How about you type up some of your own thoughts instead of repeatedly suggesting that we "see Blackstone's Commentaries?"
The concept that "the civil magistrate hath no authority over purely sacred things" comes from liberal Protestantism. (See the articles of faith of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America)Quote:
I'm still waiting on any supporting evidence that the nation was founded as a religious nation.
I thought the U. S. Government was founded in 1788 by the establishment of the U. S. Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
By what convoluted logic does this statement support the idea that America was founded as a religious nation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
No, it was founded on July 4, 1776 by the Declaration of Independence. Soon after that, a central law series of documents called The Articles of Confederation was drafted by the founding fathers. There were problems with that, so they started over and drafted the Constitution in 1789.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
It's government was founded on a religious principle, no civil authority over religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Point out where the DOI established the U. S. Government we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Why do you think we celebrate the 4th of July? It is our country's birthday. This is not even an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
I read you to say you can't point out where the DOI established the U. S. Government we have today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaQuote:
Originally Posted by Mick Jagger
http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...a%27s+birthday
Seperation of Church and State only works in a few ways. For example, there really aren't religious schools that are public. But on the contrary, we've never had an open Atheist/Agnostic as president of the United States.
Religious morals get in the way of a functioning society with more open boundaries.