The Constitutional Restoration Act

[musicman]

Zig Zag Zell???!!!

Seems to me Zell only ZIGGED - and in the RIGHT direction!

 

[Bonnie]

Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.

As for the separation of powers and the power of checks and balances, overriding a veto is not tantamount to saying the President simply cannot veto a law. THis is exactly what Congress is trying to do to the Supreme Court. If they pass this legislation, it will be deemed unConstitutional faster than you can say Zig Zag Zell.

acludem

Yes the founding fathers established a secular government that was designed to protect religious freedoms and the free expression of religion, not impede or remove from the public....The founding fathers also believed their freedoms came from God, they were divinely given not given by law. Life liberty and the persuit of Happiness is a DIVINE right, not something given to us by our judicial system!!!!!!!!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.

As for the separation of powers and the power of checks and balances, overriding a veto is not tantamount to saying the President simply cannot veto a law. THis is exactly what Congress is trying to do to the Supreme Court. If they pass this legislation, it will be deemed unConstitutional faster than you can say Zig Zag Zell.

acludem

No one here is advocating theocracy. No one wants it. You have a right to worship as you please, not to have a life where you never see the religion of others. What happened to tolerance on the left?

 

[acludem]

The extreme right of the Republican Party does want a theocracy. Many in the mainstream do want to use the power of government to at least advocate for their religion if not impose it. That's a fact. Look at the GOP platform - gay marriage bans based on religious dogma, support for faith-based groups to get federal money with no strings attached, etc.

The Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration of Independence which was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to gain popular support for separation from England. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison who are more responsible for the end product of the Constitution then just about anyone else were both Deists and both were adamantly in favor of strict separation of church and state. Even John Adams, a devoutly religious man believed strong in keeping church and state separate.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

The extreme right of the Republican Party does want a theocracy. Many in the mainstream do want to use the power of government to at least advocate for their religion if not impose it. That's a fact. Look at the GOP platform - gay marriage bans based on religious dogma, support for faith-based groups to get federal money with no strings attached, etc.

First, every one has a right to advocate their religious beliefs. Its in the constitution. You know the first amendment? Voting and advocating for good and decent things in society is hardly the same as imposing a religion on people.

Second, gay marriage bans are supported by alot more than just religious people. Unless you have another explaination for them being supported even in blue states.

Third, the faith based programs are funding to benefit society ie charities. If i were running a church i would turn any such programs down simply because i would not want government having a foot into interfering with what we can or cant do. However, religious charities should have the same rights of any other charities in applying for funding for charity. And if you were familiar with the constitution youd understand that congress could put no strings on said money even if they wanted to.

The Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration of Independence which was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to gain popular support for separation from England. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison who are more responsible for the end product of the Constitution then just about anyone else were both Deists and both were adamantly in favor of strict separation of church and state. Even John Adams, a devoutly religious man believed strong in keeping church and state separate.

Yet they conviently neglected to mention that in the document itself. Funny how that works. But it really is a moot point because you cant seem to understand what not have a state church means. nor can you seem to figure out what the free exercise clause means. really its not that tough.

 

[acludem]

Separation of Church and state was implicit in the Constitution...because God wasn't included in the governmening structure.

acludem

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.

acludem

How about the word "blessings"? Definitely a reference to God...or not, if you're an atheist. It's all in the interpretation...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Avatar4321]

Separation of Church and state was implicit in the Constitution...because God wasn't included in the governmening structure.

acludem

By that logic marriage between a man and a woman are implicitly into the constitution because homosexuals werent included in the governing structure.

Seriously ive seen some dumb arguments but this is one of the top.

 

[acludem]

The word blessings does not necessarily have a religious meaning, and certainly doesn't in the sentence "secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" This is a reference to the reason for the creation of the Constitution, to ensure Americans present and future would be free.

And actually the logic would go the other way around, since marriage was not included in the Constitution, the document is silent on this issue, so therefore unless amended there is no Constutional ban on gay marriage.

acludem

 

[CivilLiberty]

How about the word "blessings"? Definitely a reference to God...or not, if you're an atheist. It's all in the interpretation...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Here, it is "BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY", not "Blessings of the lord".

I think that's pretty clear. The term "blessing" has many secular meanings:
---
blessing
n 1: the formal act of giving approval; "he gave the project his blessing"; "his decision merited the approval of any sensible person" [syn: approval, approving] [ant: disapproval]
2: a desirable state; "enjoy the blessings of peace"
3: To confer well-being or prosperity on.
4: To endow, as with talent.
---


I really wish you people would stop trying to fit "God" into the constitution. God's not there, and neither is religion, except in the first amendment, wherein the law is written that the government shall make no establishment of any religion. The single mention of religion in the supreme law of that land is a mention forbidding governmental involvement in either establishing religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.


Hey folks, it's a secular government, separated from religion - get over it!


Regards,


Andy

 

[Hobbit]

The extreme right of the Republican Party does want a theocracy. Many in the mainstream do want to use the power of government to at least advocate for their religion if not impose it. That's a fact. Look at the GOP platform - gay marriage bans based on religious dogma, support for faith-based groups to get federal money with no strings attached, etc.

The Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration of Independence which was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to gain popular support for separation from England. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison who are more responsible for the end product of the Constitution then just about anyone else were both Deists and both were adamantly in favor of strict separation of church and state. Even John Adams, a devoutly religious man believed strong in keeping church and state separate.

acludem

So, basically, because there are a few nuts way over on the right wing who want a theocracy, you and your little ACLU cronies carpet bomb the entire Christian religion. Fabulous. What's next? Are you going to make laws that eliminate all mention of southern culture simply because a few nuts down here are still racist? Maybe next you'll want to nuke the whole ocean to make sure there are no more shark attacks. You reasoning is asinine and insulting. Judges in the ACLU's pocket have been grossly misinterpreting the Constitution and they've been pushing an agenda instead of serving the people, and no little piece of Constitution you want to misiterperet is going to bypass the fact that the founding fathers stated that it was the duty of the citizens to overthrow tyrannical governments. You may think that displaying "In God We Trust" or a nativity scene will lead to a theocracy, but what the ACLU is doing is swiftly moving towards oligarchy, rule by an elite few. You want the 9th circuit court of appeals to rule California. Well, we're a Democratic Republic, not a Judicial Oligarchy, and we NEED bills like this to stop that from happening before Congress and the President just become figureheads that pretend to do things while the Supreme Court is the only body with any power.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here, it is "BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY", not "Blessings of the lord".

I think that's pretty clear. The term "blessing" has many secular meanings:
---
blessing
n 1: the formal act of giving approval; "he gave the project his blessing"; "his decision merited the approval of any sensible person" [syn: approval, approving] [ant: disapproval]
2: a desirable state; "enjoy the blessings of peace"
3: To confer well-being or prosperity on.
4: To endow, as with talent.
---
I really wish you people would stop trying to fit "God" into the constitution. God's not there, and neither is religion, except in the first amendment, wherein the law is written that the government shall make no establishment of any religion. The single mention of religion in the supreme law of that land is a mention forbidding governmental involvement in either establishing religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.

Hey folks, it's a secular government, separated from religion - get over it!

Regards,

Andy

You conveniently left out another meaning of the word blessing: it also means "the gift of divine favor" which does reference a God.

I am so sick and tired of you liberals playing word games with us. Yes, we know our government is "secular" in the sense that it is not "religious" and not a theocracy. It was the intent of our founders to make sure that everybody had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It is the intent of the ACLU and other liberals and communists to make our government totally free FROM religion, except for the "religion" of secularism.

Since you want to play word games, secularism means according to Webster:
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith or worship.
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiatical affairrs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.

I know that it is the second definition that you think is what is being promoted by the left. However, I disagree. What is REALLY being promoted is the first definition. You will note that the first meaning says that secularism is a SYSTEM OF DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. Sounds pretty much like a "belief system" or a "religion" to me!

Our government was NOT set up to disregard or reject any form of religious faith or worship. However, this is exactly what the ACLU and others are trying to do - to eliminate any form of religion except what they are pushing: secularism.

Our Constitution allows for the EXPRESSION of all religions. In other words, our government is all INCLUSIVE OF ALL RELIGIONS. The only caveat is that no religion can take over the government. It appears to me that the belief system of secularism is attempting to take over the government today which is in complete disregard of what our Constitution says. You know, what you guys call "separation of church and state".

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

You conveniently left out another meaning of the word blessing: it also means "the gift of divine favor" which does reference a God.

I am so sick and tired of you liberals playing word games with us. Yes, we know our government is "secular" in the sense that it is not "religious" and not a theocracy. It was the intent of our founders to make sure that everybody had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It is the intent of the ACLU and other liberals and communists to make our government totally free FROM religion, except for the "religion" of secularism.

Since you want to play word games, secularism means according to Webster:
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith or worship.
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiatical affairrs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.

I know that it is the second definition that you think is what is being promoted by the left. However, I disagree. What is REALLY being promoted is the first definition. You will note that the first meaning says that secularism is a SYSTEM OF DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. Sounds pretty much like a "belief system" or a "religion" to me!

Our government was NOT set up to disregard or reject any form of religious faith or worship. However, this is exactly what the ACLU and others are trying to do - to eliminate any form of religion except what they are pushing: secularism.

Our Constitution allows for the EXPRESSION of all religions. In other words, our government is all INCLUSIVE OF ALL RELIGIONS. The only caveat is that no religion can take over the government. It appears to me that the belief system of secularism is attempting to take over the government today which is in complete disregard of what our Constitution says. You know, what you guys call "separation of church and state".

Eagle, I agree with you 100%, but I think you're wasting your time arguing with CivilLiberty. He doesn't read the Constitution, he just mangles it. The REAL quote is..."CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION"!! He wouldn't know the First Amendment if it bit him on the arse!!!

 

[acludem]

Actually the exact language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof".

That sentence means that Congress shall not recognize any religion as "official" or "preferred" by the government. It also means that Congress shall not ban or interfere with the free practice of religion, in other words, the church and state are to be entirely separate.

The ACLU has, on many, many occassions expressly defended the rights of Christians. I have, on several occassions in the past, posted specific links to cases proving this.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Actually the exact language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof".

That sentence means that Congress shall not recognize any religion as "official" or "preferred" by the government. It also means that Congress shall not ban or interfere with the free practice of religion, in other words, the church and state are to be entirely separate.

The ACLU has, on many, many occassions expressly defended the rights of Christians. I have, on several occassions in the past, posted specific links to cases proving this.

acludem

The bolded statement is what I disagree with. It's too much of a stretch for my tast. Congress can avoid endorsing or oppressing a religion without completely seperating itself from it. Basically, religious groups should be treated as all other independant, non-profit groups (like the ACLU). It should be given political clout according to the number of influenced voters, should be given a public voice, and should not be completely discounted when making policy (not because it's 'higher law,' but because it's what some of the voting public would like). If Congress made it against the law to wear Muslim garb in public, or required anybody to engage in a minister led prayer, I'd be the first one up in arms about it. However, I think it's bullcrap to kick the church off all public lands. Other groups are allowed their use, so why not the church, as long as they don't get any better deal than other non-profit organizations. If there's something religious on public property, let it be, unless they refuse to allow something from another religion. You can't just sever the church from anything public. What you have to do is just make sure that they get no more clout or priveledges than anybody else.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The bolded statement is what I disagree with. It's too much of a stretch for my tast. Congress can avoid endorsing or oppressing a religion without completely seperating itself from it. Basically, religious groups should be treated as all other independant, non-profit groups (like the ACLU). It should be given political clout according to the number of influenced voters, should be given a public voice, and should not be completely discounted when making policy (not because it's 'higher law,' but because it's what some of the voting public would like). If Congress made it against the law to wear Muslim garb in public, or required anybody to engage in a minister led prayer, I'd be the first one up in arms about it. However, I think it's bullcrap to kick the church off all public lands. Other groups are allowed their use, so why not the church, as long as they don't get any better deal than other non-profit organizations. If there's something religious on public property, let it be, unless they refuse to allow something from another religion. You can't just sever the church from anything public. What you have to do is just make sure that they get no more clout or priveledges than anybody else.

Good points Hobbitt. I especially liked your point:

However, I think it's bullcrap to kick the church off all public lands. Other groups are allowed their use, so why not the church, as long as they don't get any better deal than other non-profit organizations.

Isn't keeping religious groups off public lands a form of DISCRIMINATION?!