Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ding]

youre the one that cant answer a simple question to back up your claim not me,,

It's not a claim, dummy. It's documented history. Can you supply a link that shows the BoR was originally intended to apply to the states? Because I've already supplied 2 links that say it wasn't.

 

[ding]

Stfu Runner? You know my point. It’s why you run from it.

No one can figure out your points because of the asinine way you write your posts.

 

[progressive hunter]

It's not a claim, dummy. It's documented history. Can you supply a link that shows the BoR was originally intended to apply to the states? Because I've already supplied 2 links that say it wasn't.

SCOTUS ruling on state laws that violate the BoRs is my proof,,

are you saying for 250 they have been wrong??

 

[ding]

SCOTUS ruling on state laws that violate the BoRs is my proof,,

are you saying for 250 they have been wrong??

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bill of Rights: How Did it Happen?

Writing the Bill of Rights The amendments James Madison proposed were designed to win support in both houses of Congress and the states. He focused on rights-related amendments, ignoring suggestions that would have structurally changed the government. Opposition to the Constitution Many...

www.archives.gov

Bill of Rights Applies Only To The Federal Government – Annenberg Classroom

Although one of James Madison’s original amendments would have applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the Senate rejected it on the grounds that the states protect rights in their own constitutions. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court reiterates this by arguing that...

www.annenbergclassroom.org

 

[progressive hunter]

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bill of Rights: How Did it Happen?

Writing the Bill of Rights The amendments James Madison proposed were designed to win support in both houses of Congress and the states. He focused on rights-related amendments, ignoring suggestions that would have structurally changed the government. Opposition to the Constitution Many...

www.archives.gov

Bill of Rights Applies Only To The Federal Government – Annenberg Classroom

Although one of James Madison’s original amendments would have applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the Senate rejected it on the grounds that the states protect rights in their own constitutions. In the case of Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court reiterates this by arguing that...

www.annenbergclassroom.org

why cant you answer a simple question??

nothing you posted has the power of law,,

 

[ding]

why cant you answer a simple question??

nothing you posted has the power of law,,

Constitution 101 Resources - 5.6 Info Brief: Incorporation | Constitution Center

Constitution 101 resource for 5.6 Info Brief: Incorporation

constitutioncenter.org

James Madison Creation of Bill of Rights

billofrightsinstitute.org

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Bill of Rights [ushistory.org]

www.ushistory.org

 

[progressive hunter]

Constitution 101 Resources - 5.6 Info Brief: Incorporation | Constitution Center

Constitution 101 resource for 5.6 Info Brief: Incorporation

constitutioncenter.org

James Madison Creation of Bill of Rights

billofrightsinstitute.org

Interpretation: The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

The Bill of Rights [ushistory.org]

www.ushistory.org

why do you keep posting opinion articles???

why not just answer the question??

does SCOTUS rule on state laws that violate the BoRs??

 

[ding]

why do you keep posting opinion articles???

why not just answer the question??

does SCOTUS rule on state laws that violate the BoRs??

Loading…

homework.study.com

Protection of Constitutional Rights

home.ubalt.edu

The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people...

csac.history.wisc.edu

What was the rationale to have the US Bill of Rights only apply at the federal level, not at the state-level?

Originally, the US Bill of Rights did not apply at the state level; only the federal level. For instance, the right for a criminal to be represented by counsel, granted by the 6th Amendment, did not

law.stackexchange.com

 

[whutTHEYsay]

i. Separation of Church and State? 240817 {post•557}

NotfooledbyW Aug’25 Vsocas except by Dr. D’Elia: Everything he [jffrsn] ever wrote on Christianity was vitiated by his puerile understanding of the claims of Revelation and the Incarnation. Deep mysteries like the Trinity, Creation, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Real Presence of Christ he scorned as priestly frauds. nfbw 240817 Vsocas00557

No one can figure out your points because of the asinine way you write your posts.

Di you agree with the Catholic Historian as cited in Paragraph i. ?

 

[ding]

i. Separation of Church and State? 240817 {post•557}

NotfooledbyW Aug’25 Vsocas except by Dr. D’Elia: Everything he [jffrsn] ever wrote on Christianity was vitiated by his puerile understanding of the claims of Revelation and the Incarnation. Deep mysteries like the Trinity, Creation, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Real Presence of Christ he scorned as priestly frauds. nfbw 240817 Vsocas00557



Di you agree with the Catholic Historian as cited in Paragraph i. ?

I believe this:

Thomas Jefferson affirmed the core of classical philosophical theology.Jefferson understood Nature’s God to be a creating, particularly providential, and moralistic being, whose existence and causal relation to the world was essential to the foundations of natural-rights republicanism.For Jefferson, belief in such a God was warranted on the basis of reason, and thus is akin to the propositions that Thomas Aquinas called the preambula fidei. Jefferson’s theology was essential to natural-rights republicanism in that God’s creation and ordering of man to happiness grounded the moral law, human moral equality, and the natural right of property.Jefferson did not adhere to the major tenets of orthodox Christianity as presented in the religion’s earliest creeds, but he nonetheless affirmed the existence of a God of Nature whose attributes included being a providential, moralistic creator. And while Jefferson can appear at times as a philosophical dilettante with scattered thoughts,Jefferson developed a natural theology that has surprising continuities, and some important discontinuities, with the classical natural-law tradition.

Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God, and the Theological Foundations of Natural-Rights Republicanism (Chapter 3) - The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics

The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics - December 2022

www.cambridge.org

 

[progressive hunter]

Loading…

homework.study.com

Protection of Constitutional Rights

home.ubalt.edu

The Debate Over a Bill of Rights

Antifederalists argued that in a state of nature people were entirely free. In society some rights were yielded for the common good. But, there were some rights so fundamental that to give them up would be contrary to the common good. These rights, which should always be retained by the people...

csac.history.wisc.edu

What was the rationale to have the US Bill of Rights only apply at the federal level, not at the state-level?

Originally, the US Bill of Rights did not apply at the state level; only the federal level. For instance, the right for a criminal to be represented by counsel, granted by the 6th Amendment, did not

law.stackexchange.com

so you have no opinion of your own and cant comment on historical realities,,

its OK I knew you couldnt,,

 

[whutTHEYsay]

does SCOTUS rule on state laws that violate the BoRs??

Do they or don’t they Saint ding ???????

 

[task0778]

The Bill of Rights applies to every citizen, and since it is enshrined into our Constitution, that means that no federal, state, or local law can deny those rights. It is true that those rights can be constrained or somewhat restricted, you can't legally yell "fire" in a crowded building for instance.

Freedom of religion is included in the 1st Amendment. That basically means that no federal, state, or local law can favor one religion over another. The gov't at any level cannot force a person to belong to any religion and it cannot deny any person the right to belong to whatever religion they choose. But as with every other right, there can be some restrictions, i.e., no human sacrifices are allowed. This we have the separation of church and state, at least in theory.

 

[ding]

so you have no opinion of your own and cant comment on historical realities,,

its OK I knew you couldnt,,

Good for you. Please go learn some history so you won't be an ignorant conservative.

 

[ding]

Do they or don’t they Saint ding ???????

For constitutionality, dummy. Do you understand what that means are you as ignorant as progressive hunter?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

What this means, to those with any historical perspective, is that Congress has no power to declare a national religion, such as the Church of England is in...I forget what country.

It is folly to look to other documents for the meaning of what is clear on its face. Accordingly, there is no "...wall of separation between Church and State..." That is one person's view of the matter, not a binding precedent for everyone else, forever.

For some reason, the first five words of the First Amendment are always forgotten by Leftists who consider the Amendment and what it means. It places no constraint whatsoever on state legislatures. There is nothing in the First Amendment that would prevent the State of Utah, for example, from passing a law or a Constitutional declaration that Utah shall, to the extent consistent with other laws, be governed according to the moral principles of the Church of JC of Latter Day Saints.

Catholics, a group of which I am a member, are morally obliged to use our voting power to further the moral teachings of the Church. For example, if a political candidate openly and conspicuously advocates for a "Woman's Right to Choose," then that candidate would be one to be voted against, unless other more pressing issues apply.

It is noteworthy that many Catholics and other Christians have the mistaken belief that it is the "Christian" thing to do when they vote for politicians who promise to take taxpayer money and use it to provide "goodies" for the Poor and other wretched people. In my view that is not Christian giving, it is stealing from other people and trying to take credit for it. Charity begins at home.

/----/ "such as the Church of England is in...I forget what country."
I hope that is just your lame humor.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I believe this:

Thomas Jefferson affirmed the core of classical philosophical theology.Jefferson understood Nature’s God to be a creating, particularly providential, and moralistic being, whose existence and causal relation to the world was essential to the foundations of natural-rights republicanism.For Jefferson, belief in such a God was warranted on the basis of reason, and thus is akin to the propositions that Thomas Aquinas called the preambula fidei. Jefferson’s theology was essential to natural-rights republicanism in that God’s creation and ordering of man to happiness grounded the moral law, human moral equality, and the natural right of property.Jefferson did not adhere to the major tenets of orthodox Christianity as presented in the religion’s earliest creeds, but he nonetheless affirmed the existence of a God of Nature whose attributes included being a providential, moralistic creator. And while Jefferson can appear at times as a philosophical dilettante with scattered thoughts,Jefferson developed a natural theology that has surprising continuities, and some important discontinuities, with the classical natural-law tradition.

Thomas Jefferson, Nature’s God, and the Theological Foundations of Natural-Rights Republicanism (Chapter 3) - The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics

The Classical and Christian Origins of American Politics - December 2022

www.cambridge.org

Is he a Christian in the way America’s religious right requires their herd to be Christian.

That herd does not consider Joe Biden to be a Christian. Jefferson should be Satanic to them.

 

[ding]

Pro Tip: If you want to know the history of the bill of rights only applying to the federal government, then research the history of the bill of rights. That's the only way to learn history.

 

[ding]

Is he a Christian in the way America’s religious right requires their herd to be Christian.

That herd does not consider Joe Biden to be a Christian. Jefferson should be Satanic to them.

I don't know who the America's religious right is and I don't know anyone who requires others to be Christians. So I can't answer that question as it is written.

What I can tell you is that Thomas Jefferson affirmed the core of classical philosophical theology. Jefferson understood Nature’s God to be a creating, particularly providential, and moralistic being, whose existence and causal relation to the world was essential to the foundations of natural-rights republicanism. Jefferson did not adhere to the major tenets of orthodox Christianity as presented in the religion’s earliest creeds, but he nonetheless affirmed the existence of a God of Nature whose attributes included being a providential, moralistic creator.

 

[ding]

Thomas Jefferson affirmed the core of classical philosophical theology. Jefferson understood Nature’s God to be a creating, particularly providential, and moralistic being, whose existence and causal relation to the world was essential to the foundations of natural-rights

Atheists do not believe in Nature's God, so don't believe Nature's God to be creating, providential, moralistic and is responsible for natural rights.