Find the Cross

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem


This is not a Christian nation, if it was meant to be, the founders would've put it in the Constitution. Instead, they specifically and deliberately left religion out, as they intended for religion to be kept out of government.

acludem

You are completely wearing on my last nerve. How many times do you have to be proven wrong?

If people read our founding documents, they would see the truth:

The following is from the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was ratified June 12, 1776 --just DAYS before our Declaration of Independence. This document was to be the preamble of the Constitution but later became the template for the Bill of Rights.

XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

The following comes from the Articles of Confederation which was ratified Nov. 1777 -which was 1 1/2 years AFTER the Declaration of Independence.

Only months later was the Constitution ratified which was the final draft of THIS document.

XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777
In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781

This clearly illustrates that there is a seperation between CHURCH and state, but not FAITH and state as Christianity goes.

Christianity is to be the moral and ethical fiber perpetuated through legislated law but freedom of religion available to all.

In other words: The spirit of the law is Christian morals and ethics and that is the only authority above our documents. The letter of the law IN our documents is liberty.

The freedom of religion in our Constitution ALREADY makes this clear. Plain and simple.

How anyone can mess this up, I will never know.

 

[Avatar4321]

What i think the left tries to ignore is that Christianity in general is not a church it envelopes communities from many different Churches. so saying that we are a Christian nation would not be a violation of the establishment clause.

Even if they could provide some sort of rational how Christianity is a Church it is rather hard to ignore the clear Christian roots to this nation.

Ironicly by attacking the Christian roots of the nation the left will destroy the principles of freedom that allow them to choose what Church if any they attend.

 

[acludem]

Once again, you are continually proving me right. The Articles of Confederation failed and when the founders got together to write the new Constitution, all mention of religion was deliberately left out.

As for the Virginia statutes you cite here is the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right."

Notice the argument, if God created us, he created us with a free mind and free will - this means that people should be free to choose whatever religious they so choose, notice the statute DOES NOT say free to worship in whatever CHRISTIAN way, it says freedom of religion and religious belief, any reasonable person would construe this to mean that if one chooses no religion than they too are to be respected and left alone. The arguments contained in this article written by Thomas Jefferson adhere closely to his Deist beliefs. The last two paragraphs spell it out for you. No one should be forced to support or attend any religion they do not want to. This is the same principle in less words expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Even here, where God is mentioned, He is mentioned in the context of religious liberty. My patience is wearing thin with the religious right's constant need to force their personal religious beliefs down everyone's throat. They should take a long read of that statute and understand what it says.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Once again, you are continually proving me right. The Articles of Confederation failed and when the founders got together to write the new Constitution, all mention of religion was deliberately left out.

Ummm listen here.

What part of RATIFIED do you not understand?

The word RELIGION IS IN the Constitution. You socialists like to leave it out, so you try to make up your own reality.

Methinks you are in for GNASHING of teeth.

As for the Virginia statutes you cite here is the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom

"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Well word twister, what does THAT have to do with anything?

NOTHING can be higher than the Constitution, as stated before, and in this case, you try to supercede the highest law of that state. The Constitution clearly says all states are bound by its authority. That makes your whole statement irrelevant.

Even if it WERE relevant, it states EXACTLY what I said....."CHURCH"....which means "official gathering place" or "group affiliation in PRACTICE".

A church in context is not a belief system. It is a body organized with authority politically. The document I quoted clearly talks about spirit of the law and uses the references to ethics and morals.

Reading comes tough for socialists, I know. They can't get the RED out of their eyes.

Notice the argument, if God created us, he created us with a free mind and free will - this means that people should be free to choose whatever religious they so choose, notice the statute DOES NOT say free to worship in whatever CHRISTIAN way, it says freedom of religion and religious belief, any reasonable person would construe this to mean that if one chooses no religion than they too are to be respected and left alone.

Are you done arguing something not even being discussed yet?

The arguments contained in this article written by Thomas Jefferson adhere closely to his Deist beliefs. The last two paragraphs spell it out for you. No one should be forced to support or attend any religion they do not want to.

No kidding. We aren't even talking about that.

This is the same principle in less words expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

PROVE IT. Just becasue you like to rewrite history, it doesn't make it reality.

PROVE THAT IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

Even here, where God is mentioned, He is mentioned in the context of religious liberty. My patience is wearing thin with the religious right's constant need to force their personal religious beliefs down everyone's throat.

God is in context with religious liberty. Exactly. What is your problem with understanding things?

Ummmm.....your patience is wearing thin because you hate to acknowledge you have a Creator. Don't blame others for your lack of humility.

They should take a long read of that statute and understand what it says.

acludem

Apparently, so ought you.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
As a card carrying member of the ACLU, I'll have to point out in this situation (as with many others), people seek out the ACLU for support on what ever their endeavor is. If the ACLU can see that it is in fact a violation of certain rights, they will proceed with supporting the people (there's always loopholes in the judicial system). I do not agree obviously on every endeavor that ACLU decides to support, but I cannot consider a "seek and destroy" type of group. They just try to make things equal and fair. Unfortunately (for some), many people on the right disagree with what the ACLU tries to accomplish because it goes againsty their beliefs and what they think is equal and fair, which is understandable.

Where is the ACLU then on a citizens violation of 2nd ammendment rights? They seem to always be absent on those cases.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by insein
Where is the ACLU then on a citizens violation of 2nd ammendment rights? They seem to always be absent on those cases.

That's because according to the liberals that run the ACLU, individual gun ownership isn't protected by the Bill of Rights. Imagine if someone tried to say that freedom of speech wasn't protected by the Bill of Rights - they'd be laughed off the Internet. Yet that is exactly how the anti-gun Left tries to define the debate.

 

[freeandfun1]

First off, if somebody is offended by the "cross" why would they not be offended by the name of the City? I mean, wouldn't one that before moving to a city like San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Cruces, etc., that those cities probably have deep rooted traditions and histories associated with christianity? Don't move some place that is going to offend you. It is a simple decision.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by insein
Where is the ACLU then on a citizens violation of 2nd ammendment rights? They seem to always be absent on those cases.

Why are you bringing me back into this? When was the last time I posted in this thread?

As I've said before, someone should go to the ACLU if they feel that they're civil rights have been violated. If the ACLU feels that they can make a case about it, they will, and they will fight for your rights... Yawn....

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
First off, if somebody is offended by the "cross" why would they not be offended by the name of the City? I mean, wouldn't one that before moving to a city like San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Cruces, etc., that those cities probably have deep rooted traditions and histories associated with christianity? Don't move some place that is going to offend you. It is a simple decision.

Actually, it's Catholicism, not Christianity unless you are a Christian that views Catholics as Christians. But I agree fully with what you are saying above otherwise.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
That's because according to the liberals that run the ACLU, individual gun ownership isn't protected by the Bill of Rights. Imagine if someone tried to say that freedom of speech wasn't protected by the Bill of Rights - they'd be laughed off the Internet. Yet that is exactly how the anti-gun Left tries to define the debate.

I think, as far as I know, the anit-gun left views the 2nd amendment as old and dated and no longer needed. That's why it's not the same as the first amendment in that situation. But again, I don't know for sure.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by brneyedgrl80
I think, as far as I know, the anit-gun left views the 2nd amendment as old and dated and no longer needed. That's why it's not the same as the first amendment in that situation. But again, I don't know for sure.

Quite convenient of them... but I think that's a discussion for the political forum.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I agree. I was just saying why I think they are against the second amendment, right or wrong.

 

[acludem]

My understanding is that the reason the ACLU doesn't get involved in 2nd amendment cases is twofold - 1. There is widespread disagreement within the membership as to whether the ACLU should be involved in such cases. 2. The NRA exists to protect the 2nd amendment and spends millions doing so, so the ACLU would rather use its resources elsewhere.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
My understanding is that the reason the ACLU doesn't get involved in 2nd amendment cases is twofold - 1. There is widespread disagreement within the membership as to whether the ACLU should be involved in such cases. 2. The NRA exists to protect the 2nd amendment and spends millions doing so, so the ACLU would rather use its resources elsewhere.

I think that's pretty reasonable.

acludem

Actually the reality is that the ACLU doesn't want citizens armed either.

Being anti-Christian socialists, they want to see guns GONE.

Since the NRA, or anyone else for that matter has never ONCE taken ANY LAW OR RESTRICTION to court on the simple grounds of the "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", they are useless.

As long as the NRA is around, it is assured a SLOW decent into violating our rights as opposed to a fast obvious descent as long as citizens focus on the NRA instead of the Constitution.

As such, the NRA is the ACLU's best friend on this.

 

[acludem]

Anti-christian socialists? What the hell are you talking about? The ACLU doesn't deal in economics. Here is the aclu's official position paper on gun control/2nd amendment issues:

Gun Control
March 4, 2002

BACKGROUND The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.


Gun Control

"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"

BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."


U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.


There you have it. They're essential neutral.

acludem

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by acludem
Anti-christian socialists? What the hell are you talking about? The ACLU doesn't deal in economics. Here is the aclu's official position paper on gun control/2nd amendment issues:

:clap1:

Thats right! They don't need money!!!

IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns. ..............


There you have it. They're essential neutral.

acludem

No. You cannot be "neutral" on a Constitutional statement, and then a violation of it. You MUST be in favor of the Constitution or the violation.

As per their statement, they are for the violation.

Pop quiz: define "infringed".

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually, feel free to define infringed in the Politcal forum, and let's end the gun control debate in this thread.