Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Tennyson]

I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.

Really, troll? Prove it. Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych). You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll. 110%? Grow a pair. Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce. Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore. You've been corrected. Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.

You just confirmed my point again.

 

[Tennyson]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.

Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to. We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people. buh-bye....

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.

 

[Tennyson]

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

Actually, Emily, I agree with 100 percent of what the gentleman from CAIR said - it's exactly what I gleaned from my studies of Islam, and in conversations with friends that are Muslims, and a couple of the area Imams.

The case that I quoted, regarding divorce, involved a non-muslim woman from the US divorcing her Muslim husband. The judge ruled, using both US law and Shariah law, using the same language that your friend used - that it's not a religion of violence, that women should not be abused, etc, etc.This is but one court case that was ruled upon in the US using the tenets from the US laws, but incorporating Shariah law, to assure that dowries were returned, IAW Islamic law, In S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), a woman filed to get a restraining order against her husband. His excuse was that under Islamic (Sharia) Law, a wife must submit whenever her husband acts. The Judge didn't issue the restraining order. She appealed, The appellate ruling is consistent with Islamic law, which prohibits spousal abuse, including nonconsensual sexual relations. The summary that follows is pulled directly from LexisNexis:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

Again, speaking only for myself, I hold to the true meanings of Shariah Law, and not the Cult definitions (which are offensive), and those that profess those disgusting beliefs are just pathetic and ignorant people.

That is not what the case was about, that is not part of the case, and a first year law student would know to cite the case rather than some random opinion about the case found on the internet rather than their own opinion regarding the case or citing passages from the ruling.

The case is S.D. v. M.J.R. of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division from 2010.

Odd, Tenny, since I literally copied and pasted sections from court documents. Caught you in yet another lie. There are TWO (count them, TWO) cases I'm referring to not one.

S.D. v. M.J.R (New Jersey), as I directly quoted before, was summarized (copy/pasted from court documents) states as follows:

"In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminal sexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restraining order in the matter."

The husband referenced his ability to sexually assault his wife based solely on his misinterpretation of Sharia law (again, clearly stated).

Reread Point two in the decision:

"THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION.THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT DEFENDANT LACKED THE REQUISITE INTENT TO COMMIT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BASED UPON HIS RELIGION."

Good demonstration of your ignorance, care to share with us the definition of Sharia (religious) law? There's no country called Sharia, fool. Sharia law is the same as biblical law for Christians. Maybe some day you'll be a first year law student, but right now, you lack the skills, both intellectually, verbally and socially. I didn't pull anything from the internet, I pulled it from LexisNexis. Finally, if you'd read this in LexisNexis, all 23 pages, you would have gleaned that the summary appearing at the beginning does a good job of summarizing.

It is actually not odd. I read the cases before responding and you did not. I cited the case and you did not. Here is what you posted, but you left out the disclaimer:

The following summary does not reflect the opinion of the court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, some portions of the case may not have been summarized.

In this action pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), we held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not require a Family Part judge to exempt defendant, a practicing Muslim, from a finding that he
committed the predicate acts of sexual assault and criminalsexual contact and thus violated the PDVA. We also found that
the judge was mistaken in failing to enter a final restrainingorder in the matter.

The full text of the case follows.

Troll, go back and search. I most certainly DID quote the case first. I also read the cases before responding. You still haven't read the divorce case; otherwise, you would be apologizing. Pathetic little boy. Tell your mommy it's a nice day and you want to play outside, so the adults can talk.

Actually, all you provided was someone else’s opinion regarding the case with no citing of the case or any part of the ruling.

 

[Tennyson]

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

 

[Tennyson]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.

 

[Sneekin]

I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.

Really, troll? Prove it. Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych). You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll. 110%? Grow a pair. Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce. Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore. You've been corrected. Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.

You just confirmed my point again.

Sorry, boy, wrong again. I realize I'm using multiple syllables, sorry. Ask your mommy to read them to you, or sound them out and use a dictionary. I confirmed nothing, TROLL.

 

[Sneekin]

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.

Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to. We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people. buh-bye....

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.

Let me get this right - you stated that my views are substantiated by the language of the Constitution - yet, boy, you claim I'm dodging? Once again, you busted yourself out. Your own ignorance reflects poorly on yourself. SMH. You have NEVER validated a single statement you made here. Everyone else has, TROLLboy.

 

[Sneekin]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.

I will answer you, once you answer the 6-10 other people you blew off and failed to answer. Not until Which, TROLL, I have repeatedly told you this. Get some professional help. You have grand delusions you are a constitutional scholar. You are not.

 

[Sneekin]

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Wrong topic, TROLL. it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right. Please provide the states that currently have a state religion. The only two that have tried have FAILED. Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution. You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion. Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.

 

[Syriusly]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Wrong topic, TROLL. it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right. Please provide the states that currently have a state religion. The only two that have tried have FAILED. Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution. You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion. Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.

Dear Sneekin:
Texas does have a "faith in the republic" and the authority ultimately residing with the people:
See Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

If you read this in context: THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS,
then you CAN see it as constituting a political religion (similar to beliefs in Constitutional laws), with or without mentioning the faith in GOD that it was originally based on. You can take that reference out, and the people still following God by faith first will keep interpreting the same laws the same way with that as the source of authority. So the religious element is still there, it's in the people enforcing the laws collectively.

The way I interpret and enforce the Constitution is like a political religion, too.
I'm more Green in that I believe in consensus and not coercion, but the others in the Democrat
DO believe in this political practice of imposing beliefs by majority rule; I decided that contradicts
equal free exercise, equal protections, and the principle of not discriminating by creed, so I go by consensus.

Frankly I'm puzzled once more about this religiously held belief that people have the right to use
govt to FORCE their beliefs on someone who hasn't committed a crime deserving of losing liberties.

One side of me says I should practice my belief and not impose on that person or group's free will;
while another angle would say since they BELIEVE in govt imposing, doesn't that mean they consent to it?

In comparison with people who believe Democracy "means" majority-rule only,
then this can be seen as a political belief or practice.

If you consider all party platforms to contain elements of a political religion or creed,
maybe we should rally against "political racism" and this business of excluding people
from their equal representation and protection from discrimination, in an attempt to defend or
exercise a different creed in opposition.

I thought the point was to find what everyone wants, and get to that goal by agreement,
and not bias or distract that path by introducing contested terms or conditions that other people dismiss.

It's so contorted by people overcorrecting, overcompensating, making pre-emptive strikes to prevent from going down a 'slippery slope' the other way, that you can't even tell what people really want and what they're just afraid will happen. And which factor is the reason for objection. We just dumb it down to yes or no, choice a or b,
instead of resolving all the issues that are combined or confused together.

So I'd like to do better than this, but by golly, the distrust of different beliefs is just staggering.

Maybe it has to come to a head before it settles down and people can talk without trying to outyell each other.

Hope we'll see an end to the media wars, and get over that phase of fear-based rhetoric and rallying points.
I know that anger and fear are easy triggers to build marketing campaigns around, but at some point
you'd think we'd burn out and quit responding to the same old tactics.

I like THIS approach better, Sneekin and Tennyson, that we share insights and corrections
back and forth, regardless what we feel personally which should not get in the way of working out the content.

Thanks for that. The fact that we don't personally get along or agree on so much,
makes it all the more valuable what we do get out of interacting when it's so challenging.

I think you both are quite excellent at communicating, and understand we each
have our own ways and perspectives. It's all the more rich that we are so different.

Thank you again.
Whatever is the next phase of political growth and development,
I hope to see in society the diversity of outreach and exchange
that I see going on here. What a tremendous advantage and benefit.

Thanks to you both for being here.
Wow!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tennyson pure logic would tell us
that if states establish a religion or religious bias that
A. all their citizens agree to, nobody is going to contest it as religious imposition, so it will not be found
unconstitutional since nobody will complain or petition/sue for it to change
B. a number of their citizens DON'T believe in or agree with, then that WILL be contested as unconstitutional

(so it's the issue of CONSENT that makes it constitutional or unconstitutional)

If there isn't consent and there is a contested bias in the law due to clashing beliefs, this will cause
C. an argument whether it requires a 'consensus' of citizens to find it unconstitutional, 'majority rule' to determine if it is is or is not, or the FEDERAL GOVT to step in and decide if citizens are being deprived unconstitutionally

We will have the exact situation we have now with
1. people disagreeing about right to life, prochoice, and federal laws made by legislators or rulings by courts
2. similar arguments over the recognition of homosexual or transgender identity and marriage rights etc.

Tennyson we in fact DO have conflicts of religion going on with the govt and Constitution itself.
Some interpret and believe the history as govt founders DID establish an agreed process in creating the Constitution, where the conventions WERE presided over with prayer to God for wisdom to guide the process.

So this is in practice, an expression of the faith in the democratic process of establishing truth by "witnesses" in defense of one side or another, which is also reflected in the Bible, in Matthew 18:15-20 where trespasses are being addressed as a specific type of conflict, but this "due process of law" can apply to any grievance or issue.

If we BELIEVE in this process, and use Constitutional laws to express and enforce it, that is like a political religion because it involves govt processes.

I use these in GENERAL terms and contexts to mean PEOPLE (not just govt) redressing grievances.
So to me it is a spiritual process between people on a personal level first, then it extends to relationships between people and groups, and then the govt process reflects that collectively on a public or global scale.

I would say we DO have different denominations of Constitutionalism going on.

Dear Tennyson's there are many ways to paraphrase the
concept of govt/Congress "neither
Establishing nor Prohibiting" the free exercise of religion

freedom of religion is the free exercise clause
freedom from religion is the paraphrasing of the "not establishing" clause

For Anarchists to be included in this, I would paraphrase as "free will" or "informed consent"
"free choice" or "civil liberty" as other ways to say "freedom to exercise" one's beliefs that can be about anything

If we only used "freedom of religion' to mean "large organized world religions"
that would be discrimination by creed based on what affiliation a person has or not.

So to treat all people fairly I go with the more universal interpretation
of free will, which is still subject to the rest of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights.

Free speech and Free will/exercise cannot be "taken out of context"
so as to violate the freedom or peace or security of others (ie right to assemble peaceably and securely)
or their due process or equal protections of law from deprivation of liberty or discrimination by creed
WITHOUT VIOLATING the same laws being invoked.

That's probably the most liberal interpretation, but I use that so even
atheists or anarchists who don't claim any religion can be included and protected equally.
They just can't impose their beliefs on others if they don't want others imposing their beliefs on them,
by these same laws.

=============

Chants violated First Amendment right
In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

-- September 8, 1995
http://houstonprogressive.org/letters.html

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

 

[Sneekin]

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Wrong topic, TROLL. it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right. Please provide the states that currently have a state religion. The only two that have tried have FAILED. Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution. You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion. Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.

Dear Sneekin:
Texas does have a "faith in the republic" and the authority ultimately residing with the people:
See Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

If you read this in context: THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS,
then you CAN see it as constituting a political religion (similar to beliefs in Constitutional laws), with or without mentioning the faith in GOD that it was originally based on. You can take that reference out, and the people still following God by faith first will keep interpreting the same laws the same way with that as the source of authority. So the religious element is still there, it's in the people enforcing the laws collectively.

The way I interpret and enforce the Constitution is like a political religion, too.
I'm more Green in that I believe in consensus and not coercion, but the others in the Democrat
DO believe in this political practice of imposing beliefs by majority rule; I decided that contradicts
equal free exercise, equal protections, and the principle of not discriminating by creed, so I go by consensus.

Frankly I'm puzzled once more about this religiously held belief that people have the right to use
govt to FORCE their beliefs on someone who hasn't committed a crime deserving of losing liberties.

One side of me says I should practice my belief and not impose on that person or group's free will;
while another angle would say since they BELIEVE in govt imposing, doesn't that mean they consent to it?

In comparison with people who believe Democracy "means" majority-rule only,
then this can be seen as a political belief or practice.

If you consider all party platforms to contain elements of a political religion or creed,
maybe we should rally against "political racism" and this business of excluding people
from their equal representation and protection from discrimination, in an attempt to defend or
exercise a different creed in opposition.

I thought the point was to find what everyone wants, and get to that goal by agreement,
and not bias or distract that path by introducing contested terms or conditions that other people dismiss.

It's so contorted by people overcorrecting, overcompensating, making pre-emptive strikes to prevent from going down a 'slippery slope' the other way, that you can't even tell what people really want and what they're just afraid will happen. And which factor is the reason for objection. We just dumb it down to yes or no, choice a or b,
instead of resolving all the issues that are combined or confused together.

So I'd like to do better than this, but by golly, the distrust of different beliefs is just staggering.

Maybe it has to come to a head before it settles down and people can talk without trying to outyell each other.

Hope we'll see an end to the media wars, and get over that phase of fear-based rhetoric and rallying points.
I know that anger and fear are easy triggers to build marketing campaigns around, but at some point
you'd think we'd burn out and quit responding to the same old tactics.

I like THIS approach better, Sneekin and Tennyson, that we share insights and corrections
back and forth, regardless what we feel personally which should not get in the way of working out the content.

Thanks for that. The fact that we don't personally get along or agree on so much,
makes it all the more valuable what we do get out of interacting when it's so challenging.

I think you both are quite excellent at communicating, and understand we each
have our own ways and perspectives. It's all the more rich that we are so different.

Thank you again.
Whatever is the next phase of political growth and development,
I hope to see in society the diversity of outreach and exchange
that I see going on here. What a tremendous advantage and benefit.

Thanks to you both for being here.
Wow!

That very verbiage is what separates it from religion, however.

 

[Sneekin]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

Syriusly, have you noticed there's a little gnat buzzing around? Tennyson just doesn't get it. Good answer back to him/her. Have you noticed that the SCOTUS makes 20th century activist court rulings only when he/she disagrees with them, otherwise, they are fine.

 

[MaryL]

We all have the same rights, marriage is a right. Sexual preference isn't a right. Is that even in the constitution? Homosexuals are a artificial group made up by liberals. I have Gay liberal transsexual relatives, I get it. I just don't accept it. My own personal opinion, I do have that right, don't I?

 

[Tennyson]

I am certain you do not have a law degree, and I am 110% certain you do not teach law.

Really, troll? Prove it. Now you show us you are an under endowed, overcompensating male grunt, concerned about his manhood (double major, also have degrees in Psychology, including ABNORMAL Psych). You've just confirmed our beliefs, Troll. 110%? Grow a pair. Thank goodness we know at this point, you can't reproduce. Begone gnat, and if you don't like what I write, ignore. You've been corrected. Perhaps if you focused on obtaining your GED, and turned off Judge Judy and Divorce Court, you'd have a clue.

You just confirmed my point again.

Sorry, boy, wrong again. I realize I'm using multiple syllables, sorry. Ask your mommy to read them to you, or sound them out and use a dictionary. I confirmed nothing, TROLL.

You continue to confirm my point. Your copy and pasting an opinion regarding a court ruling and believing it was part of the ruling does not do much for your credibly.

 

[Tennyson]

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Once again, EXCELLENT demonstration of lying. I'm quoting directly from established CASE LAW. The courts, on more than one occasion, have made sure that the US decision didn't violate said law. You are an internet troll and buffoon. I can see you've repeatedly threatened and attacked and refused direct questions for verification and references. Sorry, you can't bully me, Tenny. You bore me. But I'm always happy to point out your stupidity. I used to think you were just ignorant of a few facts, but you have proven that you are either completely stupid, or doing nothing but trolling to try and "win" these threads. There is no win or lose - but in your case, it's compounding one ignorant lie after another.

You cannot provide any Article or clause in the Construction to support your claim; that is why you have not. You cannot provide one iota of evidence that this was the intent; that is why you have not. The last bastion of one not educated regarding the Constitution and history is to cry about case law because they do not have an argument and cannot back up their statements with any historical evidence.

Yet, Troll, 4 people have already provided proof. Begone, trolling gnat. How many times before you understand you have been proven wrong? Again, CHILD, address posts to the person you are speaking to. We don't want to read the blather prior to your inane rants. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself and ignored by the intelligent people. buh-bye....

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the ;language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.

Let me get this right - you stated that my views are substantiated by the language of the Constitution - yet, boy, you claim I'm dodging? Once again, you busted yourself out. Your own ignorance reflects poorly on yourself. SMH. You have NEVER validated a single statement you made here. Everyone else has, TROLLboy.

You do not get a pass to avoid. Here you go again:

You have yet to provide any article or clause to support your claim. You have not provided any evidence that your views are substantiated by the language or intent of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. You can dodge all you want; it only reflects poorly on you, not me.

 

[Tennyson]

[
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

Certainly there isn't if you ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.

I will answer you, once you answer the 6-10 other people you blew off and failed to answer. Not until Which, TROLL, I have repeatedly told you this. Get some professional help. You have grand delusions you are a constitutional scholar. You are not.

I have not avoided any questions. Here you go again with what you are dodging:

Provide your evidence regarding the First Amendment’s language and intent. The same goes with the Fourteenth Amendment. I am confident you will not.

 

[Tennyson]

Emily,

I am not sure how to answer this. There are not any ways to paraphrase “neither Establishing or Prohibiting” the free exercise of religion. They are two separate phrases with two separate meanings, intent, and backgrounds. The establishment clause was created only as a prohibition on the federal government; this precludes any mention of state. The dual purpose was to avoid another Church of England, and to no give one Protestant religion an advantage over other Protestant religions. This was started at the convention between Madison and Ames in what is referred to as the Gentlemen’s Agreement. The free exercise clause came from Madison’s personal experience of how Baptists were treated in Virginia when he was younger. It only applied to the federal government as does the entire Bill of Rights.

G, Tenny, you are now claiming that the constitution only applies to the federal government, and doesn't cover what's not in the constitutions of all 50 states? Once again, not true.

As to your other blather, you just laid claim that the United States can have a Federal Religion, as long as it's Catholic, Coptic, Muslim (Sunni/Shia), any of the various forms of Judaism, Buddhist, Sikh, or any of the other THOUSANDS of religion - provided they aren't Protestant. That is pure blather, and not true. Which is why the establishment clause is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - you will note, that Protestant no longer exists, didn't when the Constitution was finalized. Sorry, bud, epic fail. As to your constant false claims that states can establish a religion, that too is not true. The Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states. You are simply parroting a far right pipe dream.

The topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states has state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

Yes you did, TROLL. You claimed it only applied to Protestant religions. For goodness sake, if you expand this response, you'll see where you were QUOTED saying it prohibited Protestants. Why don't you stop. The topic is Gay Marriage is not a constitutional right, not the entire constitution and the entire bill of rights. And stop boring us with your "random twentieth century activist court rulings". The only time you have used this phrase is when the SCOTUS ruling is something you disagree with. Does that mean you are in full agreement, and as a strict constructionist (to explain to someone as illiterate as yourself) that you refer to a particular legal philosopy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts judicial interpretation. Then literally, you are, under the second amendment, bound to use weapons of those days only, so turn in everything but your one-shot weapons and cannons. Antonin and Thomas both changed from strict constructionist to "20th century activist judges" when it comes to one of their pet projects, the same as you.

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

Wrong topic, TROLL. it's whether or not gay marriage is or is not a constitutional right. Please provide the states that currently have a state religion. The only two that have tried have FAILED. Just like the states you claim had their own religions - you will note, ignorant one, that they no longer exist due to constitutional reasons - and that would be the FEDERAL constitution. You most certainly did claim the US could have a national religion - you stated that the US, according to our founding fathers could not have a Protestant Religion. Last time I looked, Islam, and Judaism, just to name 2 out of the thousands, are NOT Protestant.

The states had state sponsored religions into the nineteenth century. They eventually just went away and there was never a constitutional question whether they were constitutional or not because they were constitutional. I never stated that the U.S. could have a national religion as I made the opposite statement. I never stated that we could not have a protestant religion. Fabricating facts is not very flattering.

Since you are still avoiding my post, here you go again:

Again, the topic is the Bill of Rights. Why don't you copy and paste the preamble to the Bill of Rights and the first sentence of the Bill of Rights and explain who it applies to.

I did not claim that the US could have a national religion.

The states had state supported religions long after the Constitution was ratified. Why? Because it does not violate the Constitution.

This is about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not random twentieth century activist court rulings. The first requires intellect and education, the second does not. I prefer the first.

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Your attempt to paint me in a corner regarding the Second Amendment is impotent. I never made that statement nor did I allude to that statement.

 

[Tennyson]

All you have are twentieth century activist court rulings. You have never once relied on the language, the debates, or the intent of any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights..

Since the current court rulings that are in effect and are binding rely upon the language and intent of the Constitution(you do know that the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution- right? Saying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is like saying you were relying upon the Old Testament- and the 10 Commandments. )

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution? When did that happen? That was not the intent. Why was the first draft of the Bill of Rights rejected from being inserted into the body of the articles of the Constitution that the respective rights applied?