Basis of Law

[musicman]

Bully:

You come so CLOSE to being reasonable sometimes...

But, can you tell me where in the Constitution it is written that there shall be no mention - no expression - of religion at ANY level of government? The answer is "nowhere", my friend.

The only government body thus constrained is the U.S. Congress, which - our founders naively believed - was the only branch of the federal government empowered to write legislation. The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to keep federal government on a short leash, and out of decisions that should be made at the state, community, and - ultimately - the INDIVIDUAL level. That's the whole point of the exercise of self-government.

The Establishment Clause's use as a weapon against religion in public discourse is sheer fantasy. Worse, it is a perversion of the most gross and dangerous kind, of our way of life.

 

[Bullypulpit]

This agenda is not constitutionally supported. All the constitution says is "congress shall make no law regarding or prohibiting". A display of the ten commandments is not a law. Christmas decorations are not a law. Liberals are running amok due to their own hatred.

No, you silly boy, it's not hatred. Just a misguided attempt to keep religion and governement separate.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So can you please tell us how any American citizen has been harmed in over 200 years by this so-called "endorsement" (not the establishment) of religion which you and the ACLU seem to be fearfully shaking in your boots about?

We could probably make a case that only good has come from the public's exposure to the Ten Commandments.

I'm not "shaking in boots" over whatever you seem to think I am. I firmly support the right of the individual to their freedom of religious expression. But when religious organizations with the clearly stated goal of seeking and grasping political power for the purpose of having their religious doctrine enacted through legislation, I do get irritated.

If the Founding Fathers had wished to establish a theocracy the could have, and would have, done so...But they didn't. They would have molded the Constitution around biblical cannon and law...But they didn't. They wished the individual to be free to seek their own path to religious expression, or lack thereof, without the government interfering in that process. So, it is not an attack on Christianity to keep courtrooms and city halls and other civic building free of the Ten Commandments or any other symbols of Christianity. It is an affirmation of the desire of the framers of the Constitution to allow the individual to find his or her own way.

 

[musicman]

So, it is not an attack on Christianity to keep courtrooms and city halls and other civic building free of the Ten Commandments or any other symbols of Christianity.

Please cite the passage in the Constitution which demonstrates that this was the intent of our founding fathers (hint: if it begins with the word, "Congress", it doesn't apply here).

 

[Bullypulpit]

Please cite the passage in the Constitution which demonstrates that this was the intent of our founding fathers (hint: if it begins with the word, "Congress", it doesn't apply here).

It is implicit within the document even if not explicitly stated. They chose a secular republic as opposed to a theocratic dictatorship.

 

[musicman]

It is implicit within the document even if not explicitly stated. They chose a secular republic as opposed to a theocratic dictatorship.

I see. And, what does (paraphrasing), "Any power not specifically granted to the federal government automatically reverts to the states, or to the people" imply to you?

To me, it implies that the federal government (in the persons of ALL THREE branches) has a very limited and very specific list of powers. Beyond these, it is clearly and plainly instructed to keep its intrusive, tyrannical paws out of matters that are the business of the people. I don't know how you get federal judges telling communities what they can and can't do about religion out of ANY of that!

 

[Bullypulpit]

I see. And, what does (paraphrasing), "Any power not specifically granted to the federal government automatically reverts to the states, or to the people" imply to you?

To me, it implies that the federal government (in the persons of ALL THREE branches) has a very limited and very specific list of powers. Beyond these, it is clearly and plainly instructed to keep its intrusive, tyrannical paws out of matters that are the business of the people. I don't know how you get federal judges telling communities what they can and can't do about religion out of ANY of that!

<blockquote><b>Article IV.</b>

<b>Section 1</b>

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.</blockquote>

 

[musicman]

<blockquote><b>Article IV.</b>

<b>Section 1</b>

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. AND THE CONGRESS MAY BY GENERAL LAWS (emphasis mine) prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.</blockquote>

And this is perfectly in line with the principles of self-government, since the Congress is ultimately accountable to the people. However, it still doesn't answer my question. How do you get federal courts telling communities what they may and may not do about religion out of ANY PART of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm not "shaking in boots" over whatever you seem to think I am. I firmly support the right of the individual to their freedom of religious expression.

You didn't answer my question: What specific harm is being done by the 10 Commandments hanging on a wall?

But when religious organizations with the clearly stated goal of seeking and grasping political power for the purpose of having their religious doctrine enacted through legislation, I do get irritated.

You mean just like the Communist-backed organizations? (that's when I get irritated)

If the Founding Fathers had wished to establish a theocracy the could have, and would have, done so...But they didn't. They would have molded the Constitution around biblical cannon and law...But they didn't. They wished the individual to be free to seek their own path to religious expression, or lack thereof, without the government interfering in that process. .

Agreed.

So, it is not an attack on Christianity to keep courtrooms and city halls and other civic building free of the Ten Commandments or any other symbols of Christianity. It is an affirmation of the desire of the framers of the Constitution to allow the individual to find his or her own way.

That is a leap of faith (pardon the pun) on your part. How do you know that the Founders (not the liberal word "framers") desired individuals to "find their own way" by not hanging The 10 Commandments on the wall? I'd bet a Continental dollar that the 10 Commandments were somewhere around when they wrote the Constitution. Freedom of speech comes in many forms of expression.

Think of it this way: the walls in the courthouse that are empty...you can consider them to be your atheist walls. :cof:

 

[no1tovote4]

And this is perfectly in line with the principles of self-government, since the Congress is ultimately accountable to the people. However, it still doesn't answer my question. How do you get federal courts telling communities what they may and may not do about religion out of ANY PART of the U.S. Constitution?

I believe that this particular article gives the interpretation that agrees with this statement.

http://www.biblelight.net/bill-of-rights.htm

And here is one for the opposing side:

http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/baugh.htm

 

[musicman]

I believe that this particular article gives the interpretation that agrees with this statement.

http://www.biblelight.net/bill-of-rights.htm

And here is one for the opposing side:

http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/baugh.htm

Tried to "point" you, no1, but I can't do it at this time.

Thank you! That is PRECISELY what I've been looking for. Predictably, Robert R. Baughs ponderous opposition piece reeks to the heavens of deliberate error, lies of omission, and agenda-driven distortion. His strongest argument for the Supreme Court's flawed interpretation of the XIV Amendment appears to be that they have been CONSISTENT with it! Sweet Jesus - Ted Bundy was consistent!

 

[Bonnie]

Tried to "point" you, no1, but I can't do it at this time.

Thank you! That is PRECISELY what I've been looking for. Predictably, Robert R. Baughs ponderous opposition piece reeks to the heavens of deliberate error, lies of omission, and agenda-driven distortion. His strongest argument for the Supreme Court's flawed interpretation of the XIV Amendment appears to be that they have been CONSISTENT with it! Sweet Jesus - Ted Bundy was consistent!

Very eloquently stated