Remember- we are just supposed to belief Ding's opinion is fact.
Don't dare ask him to for anything to support his 'opinion'
Here is why Islam has NO place in America!
- Thread starter USApatriotz
- Start date
Remember- we are just supposed to belief Ding's opinion is fact.
Don't dare ask him to for anything to support his 'opinion'
What 'Muslim' invasion?
Why exactly are you opposed to helping those Muslims who risked their lives to help our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?
And then you will start working on getting the blacks kicked out too......and those pesky LDS.......and the Chinese......and those so called 'native Americans'.....lol
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
I'd rather cut out the grants General Dynamics and Halliburton get.
Don't dare make the effort to find out for yourself.
I don't need to. I know what the truth is. You people don't listen anyway. You just dismiss it because that's what you people do. So go figure it out for yourself because I will post the truth and others who are not as stupid as you people will go and look for themselves and will come away knowing two things; the truth and that you guys are idiots.
I'm doing pretty well showing you the fifty states, lol.
Sure you do.
So do I.
So does everyone else at USMB.
The difference between us and you- is we provide citations to support what we know.
I already have.
You are wrong. I checked and found out. If you went and made the effort you would realize that I am right and you are wrong.
LOL.
If after searching for the truth you arrived at that conclusion. I can only assume you are a moron.
Understanding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses
"The First Amendment, which became part of the Constitution of the United States on December 15, 1791, as the leading article in the Bill of Rights, begins with this pair of clauses: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Amendment then stipulates that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This juxtaposition prompts a question: Why wasn’t the Free-Exercise Clause (Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion) sufficient in itself? No other First Amendment right—freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, or petition—has a pair of clauses devoted to it.
In 1791, there were fourteen states in the United States, the original thirteen having been joined by Vermont, and half had religious establishments. What connection is there between the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and this fact that seven of the fourteen states had establishments of religion? Could the purpose of the Establishment Clause have been to prevent the federal government from interfering with those religious establishments? Were the two religion clauses—establishment and free-exercise—coordinate protections of the right of the states to regulate religious matters within their borders? And what, exactly, is “an establishment of religion”? Each of these questions bears on the Supreme Court’s reversal over the past half century of the First Amendment’s prohibition against federal intrusion into religious matters
Let us first take up the question of what exactly a religious establishment is. In addressing this matter, one must understand that the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1962 in Engel v. Vitale—that a religious exercise in a public school represents an establishment of religion—redefined the meaning of a religious establishment. But it is even more important to understand that no court ruling can change the historical reality of what a religious establishment is. The Supreme Court possesses vast power, but that does not include the ability to rewrite history. The nature of religious establishments in the history of Western civilization is clear and cannot be altered by any court.
An establishment of religion is a declaration by a government, in a law, of a preference for one particular religion, which the law names. This declaration of a preference is substantial and not just nominal, because the establishment law grants the preferred religion some substantial benefit that government alone can confer. The establishment law confers the benefit on the identified religion only; the churches of other religions, and persons unaffiliated with any organized religion, are excluded from receiving it. Typically, the benefit bestowed is the privilege of receiving institutional support from public revenues or the privilege to vote and hold public office—sometimes a combination of both. No establishment of religion exists when a government treats the members of every faith equally, tolerates free, public expression of any religious faith, and enacts no establishment law bestowing a substantial governmental benefit on one religion to the exclusion of all others.
In 1791, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina had establishment laws that benefited “the Protestant faith”; in Delaware and Maryland, where there were numerous Roman Catholics, establishment laws benefited “the Christian faith”; establishment laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts bestowed exclusive privileges on the Congregationalist Church. The churches representing the religions established through these state laws were all supported by donations of money from the public treasuries of the seven states that had privileged them as the preferred churches of their governments. Only Massachusetts and Connecticut, however, had what could be termed strong religious establishments, since the establishment laws in those states gave preference to just one church and made membership in it a qualification for voting and holding public office.
During the next forty-two years—that is, between 1791 and 1833—the religious establishments in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina were all abrogated by acts of state legislatures that revoked their establishment laws; no further establishment laws were ever enacted in the United States. Thus, it is a plain matter of historical record that since 1833 no establishment law has existed anywhere in the United States; hence, there have been no establishments of religion since that date...."
"...The religion clauses for the First Amendment that Madison introduced in the House of Representatives read as follows: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, [n]or shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext, infringed.” This awkward wordiness was amended by a majority of his colleagues in the House, under the leadership of Fisher Ames of Massachusetts, to read: “Congress shall make no law establishing Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.” The Senate then amended that language further to, “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” All three of these statements had the evident aim of prohibiting Congress from enacting a law that would, in Madison’s words, establish “any national religion.” And despite their various styles and various degrees of specificity, all of them protected the free exercise of religious beliefs.
As with bills today, it was a conference committee that reconciled the House and Senate versions and produced the final language of the First Amendment that Congress sent to the states for ratification. Two members of this six-member committee, Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman, were from Connecticut, a state with a strong religious establishment. The language of the conference committee’s final version kept the Free-Exercise Clause that both houses of Congress preferred to Madison’s diffuse wording but rephrased the Establishment Clause in a way that significantly broadened its frame of reference. That clause’s final wording (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) succinctly prohibited Congress from both enacting an establishment law of its own and disturbing the establishment laws that then existed in half the states of the Union.
The key term in this significant revision was “respecting,” a word meaning “in regard to,” according to Noah Webster’s 1806 Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, the dictionary of American usage closest in time to the writing of the First Amendment. That meaning was also given in Webster’s more scholarly, more comprehensive dictionary of 1828, An American Dictionary of the English Language, which defined “respecting” as “regarding; having regard to; relating to.” One should notice also that the reworded clause says “respecting an [i.e., any] establishment of religion” rather than “respecting the establishment of a religion.” The conference committee rejected wording that would have applied only to Congress’s passing a law to establish a religion; the chosen wording denied Congress that power, of course, but it also denied Congress the power to negate or modify by federal law any of the religious establishments in the states. Thus, the final wording of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that three-fourths of the states ratified in 1791 contained a double prohibition on federal authority. It forbade Congress from enacting an establishment law of its own and from interfering with any state’s existing establishment..."
Thomas Jefferson letter of 23 Jan. 1808 to Rev. Samuel Miller confirms that the purpose of the 1st Amendment was to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion and prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions which were perfectly legal and in existence.
Amendment I (Religion): Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller
"I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority...."
So now I will turn my attention to the 14th Amendment. Specifically the intention of the 14th Amendment with regard to the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
"The Blaine Amendment
We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”
This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine (1830—1893), the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:
No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.
The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:
No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights. And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century."
The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights
USApatriotz
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2017
- 660
- 236
- 180
- Thread starter
- #77
OF COURSE I'm aware of the 1st amendment but just like we have limitations on freedom of speech & limitations on owning a weapon we should IDEALLY have limitations on freedom of religion!
ENOUGH with the peaceful Muslims NONSENSE because there is ONLY one religion that commits GLOBAL terror in the name of THEIR god! The peaceful Muslims worldwide haven't been able to stop hundreds of THOUSANDS who have been killed in terror attacks all over the world!
Obviously these peaceful Muslims haven't been able to cure the CANCER in their own religion & there is only ONE religion on earth that commits these atrocities on such a MASSIVE scale! So IDEALLY we should do what Japan does which is refuse Muslim refugees & do NOT take in a group of people with a HISTORY of causing violence worldwide!! Why do you think Japan doesn't have Islamic terrorism?? BECAUSE THEY'RE SMART ENOUGH TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF MUSLIMS THEY HAVE IN THE COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH!!
Read more about the so called "religion of peace" below:
www.thereligionofpeace.com
ENOUGH with the peaceful Muslims NONSENSE because there is ONLY one religion that commits GLOBAL terror in the name of THEIR god! The peaceful Muslims worldwide haven't been able to stop hundreds of THOUSANDS who have been killed in terror attacks all over the world!
Obviously these peaceful Muslims haven't been able to cure the CANCER in their own religion & there is only ONE religion on earth that commits these atrocities on such a MASSIVE scale! So IDEALLY we should do what Japan does which is refuse Muslim refugees & do NOT take in a group of people with a HISTORY of causing violence worldwide!! Why do you think Japan doesn't have Islamic terrorism?? BECAUSE THEY'RE SMART ENOUGH TO SEVERELY RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF MUSLIMS THEY HAVE IN THE COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH!!
Read more about the so called "religion of peace" below:
www.thereligionofpeace.com
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,413
- 3,635
**** you, this isn't Nazi Germany. That's not happening here.
USApatriotz
Gold Member
- Jan 3, 2017
- 660
- 236
- 180
- Thread starter
- #79
Japan isn't Nazi Germany & they're admired the world over yet have very few Muslims & very few mosques! We should be SMART like them!
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,413
- 3,635
Dumbfuck... Japan doesn't ban Islam.
We won't be banning it either.
Again, we are not following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany. Deal with it.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Please comment on new “ Project Hell Marry trailer ?? Getting great reviews- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
-
Jasmine Crockett’s Security Guard Fatally Shot By Dallas SWAT In Standoff – What We Know- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Jeffrey Epstein claimed he gave Russians insight into Trump
- Latest: Synthaholic
