Traditional Values Defined

[MissileMan]

So explain how a state sanctioned, official state religion promotes the concept of freedom of religion. Such a designation would only lead to discrimination against those who didn't belong to or preferential treatment of those who did.

 

[Said1]

So explain how a state sanctioned, official state religion promotes the concept of freedom of religion. Such a designation would only lead to discrimination against those who didn't belong to or preferential treatment of those who did.

That what the freedom of association is all about. You're allowed to be wrong without being thrown to the lions.

 

[musicman]

So explain how a state sanctioned, official state religion promotes the concept of freedom of religion.

Excellent question! I think that the important thing, to the framers, was establishing a devolutionary path to such powers first; i.e., getting it out of the hands of the federal government as fast - and far - as possible. Remember - these guys recognized central government as a constant potential enemy (wisely and prophetically so, it would seem). Moreover, their view of "the states" was - ultimately - the people. Did they foresee that states would find the establishment of official religions difficult - from a practical standpoint? We don't know - but, of course, that's what happened.

Such a designation would only lead to discrimination against those who didn't belong to or preferential treatment of those who did.

And that's precisely what the states found out - abandoning the idea completely by 1833. However - and this is the important thing - the power over religious aspects of their lives DID REMAIN with the states (and therefore, then - the people), where it belonged, until the whole foundation was corrupted in 1947.

 

[MissileMan]

And that's precisely what the states found out - abandoning the idea completely by 1833. However - and this is the important thing - the power over religious aspects of their lives DID REMAIN with the states (and therefore, then - the people), where it belonged, until the whole foundation was corrupted in 1947.

IMO, the power over religious aspects of lives belongs with the individual, and I don't see any corruption of that aspect from either the state or federal level.

 

[musicman]

IMO, the power over religious aspects of lives belongs with the individual, and I don't see any corruption of that aspect from either the state or federal level.

Ah, but all the more proof of the wisdom in the devolutionary design of our Constitution! Central govt. - very limited, very specific powers. State govt. - broader powers to the people, through their duly elected representatives. As matters become more about the personal conduct of one's everyday life (within the rule of accepted societal law), the power devolves further and further - to the towns, to the communities, and - ultimately - to the individual. The minimum interference possible from government; "the government that governs least, governs best". Not perfect, but not bad, eh?

 

[musicman]

Let me try to put that a bit more succintly, and with somewhat more relevance to your post:

From the viewpoint of the framers, working diligently to craft a wise separation of powers, "the states" = the people.

 

[no1tovote4]

And yet the current liberal justices cite the first amendment when imposing their "seperation" concept. The justification is supported by the "living and breathing" document (COTUS) concept. The living and breathing concept makes the COTUS worth nothing more than the paper it is written on.

I have long held we are no longer under the COTUS, and unless we rescind many laws, and go back to original intent and strict reading, AND include an amendment preventing the judiciary from such a power grab again, we will continue to be a country of laws, but the basis of those laws stem from the judiciary, NOT THE COTUS.

The justices hide behind the cotus not any less than religious leaders of old Europe hid behind the Bible and Jesus.

Washington
Jefferson
God
Jesus

they all scoff at them.

Right. The First Amendment began to apply to the States when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Because of the 14th Amendment the 1st could be applied to the State governments as well as the Legislature. Check into it... Before that there were States that had a specific religion mentioned in their Constitutions but once it was passed the 1st applied and they had to rewrite those portions of their constitutions.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Multiple choice question:

People originally came to this country to escape persecution and oppression from?
a. Other Christians
b. Other Christians
c. Other Christians
d. All of the above

The founders specifically established a nation of laws, not of religious morality. You need only look at the fact that only three of the Ten Commandments are actually laws to realize it.

The founding fathers had a revolution to break the bound with
a. King George
b. King George
c. King George
d. All of the above.

The writings of virtually all of these men described the govt as being based in christianity, and dependent on ALMIGHTY GOD for it to exist. Those are STONE COLD FACTS. More than three of the ten commandments are laws.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So explain how a state sanctioned, official state religion promotes the concept of freedom of religion. Such a designation would only lead to discrimination against those who didn't belong to or preferential treatment of those who did.

Ask the founding fathers. THey are the ones who wrote the laws and amendments. You havent answered my question. Im not gonna let it go until you answer it or admit you are wrong.

You can have an "official and legal" state religion and yet still let others practice freedom of religion just the same as "Canon" is the official camera of the Olympics, but you can still use a Minolta to take pics if you want, at the olympics. Having something officially sanctioned is saying, we are trying to persuade people, but not FORCE them.

Now, see how easy that is, answering questions. Quit running from my question, it only shows you dont have an answer if you dont answer it. Not answering it is a backdoor way of admitting you and Maxi Pads are wrong.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Right. The First Amendment began to apply to the States when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Because of the 14th Amendment the 1st could be applied to the State governments as well as the Legislature. Check into it... Before that there were States that had a specific religion mentioned in their Constitutions but once it was passed the 1st applied and they had to rewrite those portions of their constitutions.

The 14th amend. and its application are vague at best. Except for its original intent.

 

[MissileMan]

More than three of the ten commandments are laws.

Murder, theft, and perjury...name any others that are U.S. law.

 

[MissileMan]

The 14th amend. and its application are vague at best. Except for its original intent.

But that is the answer to the question you keep screaming about.

 

[musicman]

Right. The First Amendment began to apply to the States when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Because of the 14th Amendment the 1st could be applied to the State governments as well as the Legislature. Check into it... Before that there were States that had a specific religion mentioned in their Constitutions but once it was passed the 1st applied and they had to rewrite those portions of their constitutions.

There are a lot of misconceptions on states/establishment/XIV. Here's the clearest explanation I've found on the subject:

http://www.liberty-ca.org/articles/...marks on the subject, for what they're worth.

 

[Annie]

There are a lot of misconceptions on states/establishment/XIV. Here's the clearest explanation I've found on the subject:

http://www.liberty-ca.org/articles/...eligious_pr.htm

link didn't work.

 

[Annie]

link didn't work.

http://liberty-ca.org/usreligionhistory.htm

Is this it?

The question of whether a state has the right to establish a religion is an issue for the state and it's Constitution and laws, not the Federal Court, because neither Congress nor the Court has authority to regulate religion..

Established state religions existed in the United States for many years after passage of the Constitution and first several amendments, Massachusetts ending the Puritan state religion in 1833.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

The 14th Amendment extended citizens First Amendment rights to the states but does not prohibit states from establishing a religion. Both states and citizens have a Constitutional right to "the free exercise" of religon, but the Fourteenth Amendment puts citizens rights above the states.

Therefore the Constitution continues to protect the rights of citizens to establish a religion, but their religion must respect and not infringe on the beliefs of the minority.

Early Court interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment limited the "privileges or immunities" clause to the abolishenment of slavery, but it was later expanded to other issues applicable to the rights of citizens. The 14th Amendment should protect, not ban, the practicing of religion in schools and other places under the authority of government, because the rights of the majority do not cease at the door of a class room any more than do the rights of the minority.

The First Amendment Establishment Clause cannot be applied directly to the Fourteenth Amendment. Citizens "privileges or immunities" allow them to be free of laws infringing on their rights, but a law establishing a religion does not infringe on those rights unless or until it affects the citizens rights. Similarly, citizens in the majority are awarded the same privileges or immunities by the Fourteenth Amendment including the right to religious freedom in or out of a public building, if they are in compliance with other laws and policies.

In Bill of Rights, writer Kerby Anderson outlines the first ten amendments and intention the "religion and state" clause..

"Originally the religion clause of the First Amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church. Some New England states maintained established state-churches until the 1830s.

In the last century, the Supreme Court has extended the First Amendment to any religious activity by any governmental body. The establishment clause originally prohibited the establishment of a national church by Congress, but now has been broadened to prohibit anything that appears like a government endorsement of religious practice. The free exercise clause supposedly prohibits government from placing any burden on religious practice." (Reprinted with permission)

No reasonable Constitutional basis, nor legal justification exists for the more recent judicial change from states' to federal authority, but may be, rather, simple judicial activism. A long string of federal court decisions can legally clarify, but not alter the meaning of the Constitution. A court attuned to the rights of states will roll back the federal intrusion in states' rights.
The States' Liberty Party advocates states' rights, not necessarily the establishment of states' religions.

 

[musicman]

link didn't work.

What a bummer! It's cool, though - see edit.

 

[musicman]

http://liberty-ca.org/usreligionhistory.htm

Is this it?

It's very close to the same thing - thanks so much!

 

[Bullypulpit]

this is quite right.....people how do not belive in god could lead a moral and ethical life ..... i have met both belivers and non-belivers that stray far from these values and their life becomes quite the mess......those that do not stray from these values seldom have problems

It's really quite simple...The yardstick by which you measure the morality of your actions lies in the consequences of you actions upon yourself and others. Actions which are beneficial to yourself, others or both are moral. Actions leading to the harm of yourself, others or both are immoral.

See, no need for edicts handed down from on high...Just the consideration of the objective consequences of one's actions in this life and in this world. No metaphysical entities involved at all.

As for not understanding how "...people how do not belive in god could lead a moral and ethical life ...", perhaps you should expand your sphere of contacts beyond your immediate family. There are many many people leading good and moral lives who do not believe in any supreme being at all, and many millions more leading moral lives who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian deity. This lack of understanding on your part is, naive at best. At worst, it is chauvinism and hubris.

 

[MissileMan]

It's really quite simple...The yardstick by which you measure the morality of your actions lies in the consequences of you actions upon yourself and others. Actions which are beneficial to yourself, others or both are moral. Actions leading to the harm of yourself, others or both are immoral.

See, no need for edicts handed down from on high...Just the consideration of the objective consequences of one's actions in this life and in this world. No metaphysical entities involved at all.

As for not understanding how "...people how do not belive in god could lead a moral and ethical life ...", perhaps you should expand your sphere of contacts beyond your immediate family. There are many many people leading good and moral lives who do not believe in any supreme being at all, and many millions more leading moral lives who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian deity. This lack of understanding on your part is, naive at best. At worst, it is chauvinism and hubris.

I'm pretty sure that "how" was supposed to read "who" and Manu was actually saying that one doesn't need to be religious to be moral and that being religious doesn't automatically make someone moral.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

But that is the answer to the question you keep screaming about.

Hardly.