Congress shall make no law

[Socrates]

This all just goes to show how the original intent of the Constitution (to limit the power of the Federal Gov't and protect state's rights) has been perverted by modern liberalism to impose godlessness on everybody.

The (tenth? - sorry, I forget) ammendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt by the constitution belong to the states or to the people.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 29 2004, 03:10 PM'] This all just goes to show how the original intent of the Constitution (to limit the power of the Federal Gov't and protect state's rights) has been perverted by modern liberalism to impose godlessness on everybody.

[/quote]
Can't say that I follow that line of logic.

[quote]The (tenth? - sorry, I forget) ammendment specifically states that all powers not specifically given to the federal governemnt by the constitution belong to the states or to the people.[/quote]

Correct, the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which has no relevance, but is one that is often overlooked.

[popestpiusx]

Burnspivy,
The same Jefferson you quoted above also promised an order of French Ursuline Nuns that the Federal Government would fund them after the Louisiana Purchase in which they lost their state patronage. He was also one of the key figures that pushed the law through the Virginia state legislature outlawing skipping Sunday services.

Furthermore, you have a fundamental misunderstanding what "establishment of religion" meant in 18th Century british law. Even though the colonies seperated from Britain, they still employed the Bristish legal system and simply modified it into a republic. This is the only legal system they would have known. The British Common Law system had a huge influence on the Framers and would have especially influenced the terminology. Plus, the framers themselves lived in states and influenced the state governments, many of which had established Churches. There was no objection. Never was. It was left to the states.

[God Conquers]

You definately have to take into consideration the reason there are people living in America in the first place at this time: they are being persecuated religiously at home in Britain.

After the 2nd Civil war the founders of the United States wanted to ensure that they would always have freedom to express their religion.

[popestpiusx]

Is that comment to me or who?

[God Conquers]

Mostly burnspivey.....

Ity doesn't seem he/she (sorry I really don't know) has a very firm grasp on the mindset of the founding fathers.

We can't export their intentions into the context of our own era... it simply doesn't make sense, we have to examine their intent from their own perspective.... as a persecuted religious minority establishing a state of their own where they want to worship in freedom.

They are not altruistic in this goal... their vision is a purely Christian one, and likely they could only envision the meaning to be freedom of worship of a different christian type.

[popestpiusx]

But what, if any, type or form that would take was left up to each state. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the fed. gov. being given any authority to regulate the religious practices of the various states.

[Don John of Austria]

I would differ with you on the Idea that the founders wanted religious freedom, several colonies where quite serious persecuters of desenting religons.

[popestpiusx]

You are right. One would have to be more specific than simply using the term "founders".

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 29 2004, 04:35 PM'] Can't say that I follow that line of logic.



Correct, the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And the Ninth:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which has no relevance, but is one that is often overlooked. [/quote]
Sorry to cause confusion, Burnsspivey. I actually started writing my post before you posted yours, so it was not in reply to yours (we were posting at about the same time.)

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 29 2004, 08:59 AM'] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [b]or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b];

Has the Supreme Court violated the second part of this clause by denying students the opportunity to pray in public schools? [/quote]
A public school is a government based institution. And because Congress didn't establish a religion then any government building shouldn't sponsor or help to sponsor any religious affiliation.

The "founders" were alot more than just the people who wrote the Constitution you know. I know Thomas Paine had much influence on many of the writers and alot of them weren't even straight forward Christians. Many were Deist. And many others questioned Christianity.

This country was not created to be a Christian nation. There were never only Christians in this country and when the Constitution was made I'm sure the writers knew this and took it into account.

Socrates-NO

The constitution was done to balance the powers of the federal and state governments. They check each other so that not one has more right over the other. It says what each side can and can't do. And "imposing godlessness" isn't one of them.

Imposing true freedom from religious influence is.

[toledo_jesus]

but has this freedom from religious influence been warped by some to mean freedom from religion entirely? I mean, sometimes it appears the government wants to pretend that religion doesn't exist and has no bearing on what people will do, which doesn't seem right to me.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 29 2004, 06:21 PM'] Burnspivy,
The same Jefferson you quoted above also promised an order of French Ursuline Nuns that the Federal Government would fund them after the Louisiana Purchase in which they lost their state patronage. He was also one of the key figures that pushed the law through the Virginia state legislature outlawing skipping Sunday services.

[/quote]
And thus your point is what? That Jefferson was a hypocrite? Most people are at one point or another. Jefferson wanted to protect the church from the state. However, such protection works both ways.

Also, we may see their original intent and still find that today the First Amendment means something altogether different. Why? Because it has been interpreted and there is precedent that gives it more meaning. It's the duty of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. It has done so many times and in '47 it stated "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."

What is often overlooked in discussions such as these is that the wall protects both sides. You must know that if there was a state religion it would be a protestant one. Would you be happy with that? I'm sure that the answer is no. So, why would you argue for state religion? Even if it didn't come down to there existing a state religion -- how happy would you be if the state could make laws about your religious practices? I'm going to guess not very.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 29 2004, 10:33 PM'] Mostly burnspivey.....

Ity doesn't seem he/she (sorry I really don't know) has a very firm grasp on the mindset of the founding fathers.

We can't export their intentions into the context of our own era... it simply doesn't make sense, we have to examine their intent from their own perspective.... as a persecuted religious minority establishing a state of their own where they want to worship in freedom.

They are not altruistic in this goal... their vision is a purely Christian one, and likely they could only envision the meaning to be freedom of worship of a different christian type. [/quote]
That's a little difficult to believe considering that few of the founding fathers were christian.

It's much easier to understand the mindset of the founding fathers by looking at their writings than it is to simply try to imagine what they were going through. When they are writing that they want church and state to be separate I tend to believe that they want church and state to be separate.

However, even if they were simply protecting the right of 'a different type of christian worship' when they wrote the First Amendment its protection [b]must[/b] be extended to those of other religions. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees with its "equal protection" clause.

Edited November 30, 2004 by burnsspivey

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 30 2004, 09:58 AM'] but has this freedom from religious influence been warped by some to mean freedom from religion entirely? I mean, sometimes it appears the government wants to pretend that religion doesn't exist and has no bearing on what people will do, which doesn't seem right to me. [/quote]
How does it appear this way? In that the SC has ruled that minors can be served wine at religious ceremonies (communion, for example)? In that the SC has repeatedly upheld the free exercise clause of the 1st? Either I don't understand what you are trying to say or you are simply wrong.