skeptic 992 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Merlyn: You must be having a stroke right now, if you have been observing the inauguration. Invocations, benedictions, grace, Obama referring to the bible in his speech. Not quite what you hoped for so far, I guess. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Ahem, Stewart should give it up - he already missed it. Link to post Share on other sites
vol_scouter 365 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Merlyn, Like all liberals, you only wish to quote part of the first amendment to the constitution which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thus, there should be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We are not to be free from religion. The amendment was to prevent the federal government to force the states to adopt a federally determined religion. Several of the original 13 states had state sanctioned religions. Thus, the intention was not to prevent an individual state from having a sanctioned religion but to prevent the federal government from over riding that individual state's religion. The 14th amendment has been interpreted as federalizing state laws. That was also not the original intent. Both amendments have been twisted by judges to suit the views of that judge which was not the intention of the courts by the founding fathers. The country would be better served if the congress represented the views of the citizens and judges ruled on the original intent. If those laws need to be changed, it is the congress that should change the laws not the judiciary. Link to post Share on other sites
kraut-60 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Okay...it says "In God WE trust" We, as in all of us...WE. I'm good with keeping the inscription the same. I trust God and she trusts me...maybe a few coins could say "In Kraut WE Trust"? Nahh, if anything we could add "All Others Pay Cash". Hey theres an idea, personalized money! The mint could make a personalized coin on a custom striking, but you'd have to get a whole roll and the minimum cost would be say...$5 per coin? Its done with M&Ms and license plates...........(British officer from Monty Python walks in) RIGHT! Enough of this twaddle! Get on with the next spot...Right! You there! Yes you!(kraut slinks off). Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Ed writes: I know what the 1st Amendment states, Merlyn. God is not a religion. He is a deity! Religions believe in Him. You don't. That's your choice. But having God on US currency or as part of a motto does not establish a religion! NEXT! "Next" would be the courts, which don't agree with you, Ed. skeptic writes: You must be having a stroke right now, if you have been observing the inauguration. Invocations, benedictions, grace, Obama referring to the bible in his speech. Not quite what you hoped for so far, I guess. Oh, for people like you who like to reference religion as a kind of social sledgehammer to pound anyone not of your religion, your taunting observations are hardly new. Your god must be quite proud of you. vol_scouter writes: The amendment was to prevent the federal government to force the states to adopt a federally determined religion. Like all right-wingers, you read the first amendment the way you want it to read, instead of the way Madison regarded it. You know, the guy who wrote it? Several of the original 13 states had state sanctioned religions. Thus, the intention was not to prevent an individual state from having a sanctioned religion but to prevent the federal government from over riding that individual state's religion. Wrong. The first amendment didn't even APPLY to the states until the 14th amendment and incorporation rulings. The first amendment only applied to what the federal government could do, so anything it said, pro or con, only affected the federal government, not state governments. Both amendments have been twisted by judges to suit the views of that judge which was not the intention of the courts by the founding fathers. The founding fathers never heard of the 14th amendment, and Madison's view of the 1st amendment doesn't agree with yours. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Nice try Merlyn, but none of your arguments in your last post hold water. Link to post Share on other sites
SSScout 1615 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Here we go... In the coming electronic age, where physical currency is eliminated, and all buying and selling is done electrically ( you ever see anyone in Startrek PAY for anything?), will the debit cards have "IGWT" on them? Link to post Share on other sites
GernBlansten 10 Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Many CC companies allow you to design your own card. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Boyce 13 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 In times like these, perhaps the words "In God We Trust" should be made even larger on our currency! Link to post Share on other sites
Trevorum 24 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Are you implying that God has poor eyesight? Link to post Share on other sites
vol_scouter 365 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Merlyn, That is the point. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from forcing the states to change their state sponsored religions from one denomination to another. Liberals like to point to Madison helping his home state of Virginia to disestablish the state supported Angelican church. He did so because the Baptists and Presbyterians were growing resulting in a desire for them to be treated better. What liberals do not like to acknowledge is that on the same day that Madison introduced the disestablishment bill in the Virginia legislature, he also introduced a bill making it a crime punishable by jail time to work on the Sabbath. Since you are using Madison as your source (most appropriately), please do not use the quote from a single letter from Jefferson, who did not help to write the constituion, about separation of church and state. Also, be sure to include that the government cannot limit the free expression of religion which is almost always left out of these discussions. Also, Madison's ideas of freedom of religion was to allow different Christian denominations. Madison would likely be appaled at the current rulings and twisting of the reasons that this part of the first amendment was written. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I'll deal with the real world, thanks; I won't make up what I "think" Madison would say about the current situation, as making up what dead people supposedly think is a very weak rhetorical device. I much prefer dealing with reality; you, apparently, would rather ignore decades of court rulings in favor of your own fantasies. Let me know when a legal dispute is ever argued in your fantasy court -- I'll continue to just deal with the real one. Link to post Share on other sites
vol_scouter 365 Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Merlyn, As usual, when faced with the problems in your argument, you resort to insults. You ignored the rest of the facts and commented only upon a supposition. So to be more direct, Madison was for the states having a state sponsored, endorsed, or supported religion if they so desired. His writings are clear. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a federally mandated religion while allowing the states to do so if they wished. There are two clauses, the first is dealing with non-establishment and the second says that no laws shall be promulgated "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The left wishes to ignore the second clause. As to the courts, there were many rulings that upheld slavery though not really constitutional. The courts are not always right. As I citizen, I do not have to agree with a court ruling but I must abide by the ruling until it is changed by other rulings or a law. Link to post Share on other sites
TheScout 10 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 It is common for those who do not like what the Constitution says to change the meaning to suit their ends. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 vol_scouter writes: As usual, when faced with the problems in your argument, you resort to insults. Sorry, you're clearly not dealing with reality. You're making up what you "think" Madison would say about current court rulings, and making up out of whole cloth what the first amendment means without regard to decades of court opinions and case law. You simply aren't dealing with the real world, but some fantasy court in your mind. Madison was for the states having a state sponsored, endorsed, or supported religion if they so desired. No, he wasn't "for" it, as is clear by how he argued for religious freedom, but back in Madison's time the first amendment only applied to the federal government, not state governments. This is not at all the same as being "for" it. The First Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a federally mandated religion while allowing the states to do so if they wished. Wrong. The first amendment only applied to the federal government. The first amendment didn't "allow" states to establish a state religion any more than the first amendment "allowed" states to punish public criticism of the governor with execution. And I've pointed out before that Madison didn't consider the first amendment to only prohibit a federall mandated religion. There are two clauses, the first is dealing with non-establishment and the second says that no laws shall be promulgated "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The left wishes to ignore the second clause. Well, I sure don't, but a lot of people think "free exercise" applies to things that aren't citizens, like city councils. As to the courts, there were many rulings that upheld slavery though not really constitutional. What? Slavery wasn't prohibited until the constitution was amended to prohibit slavery. Of COURSE it was constitutional in the past. The courts are not always right. As I citizen, I do not have to agree with a court ruling but I must abide by the ruling until it is changed by other rulings or a law. So why do you continue to insist that the first amendment only prohibits a national religion? The courts don't say that. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now