Congress shall make no law

[toledo_jesus]

I meant that in public it seems the government doesn't want to acknowledge the power that religion has over its citizens. Private issues like communion wine aren't in the public sphere.
What I think I am getting at is that I don't think it is productive to ignore the spiritual in our schools, especially. There should be resources for students that have faculty support. Not necessarily endorsement, but some acknowledgment of the influence religion can have. Prayer meetings around a flag pole don't cut it, young people need to be educated about the legitimacy of believing in God.

[Socrates]

The first ammendment was created for the purpose of preventing an official federal national religion (like the Church of England) that would force citizens to follow this religion, or only allow people belonging to the "National Church" to hold federal office.

It was never intended to remove any traces of religion from public life.

That this is what the founders intended is clear from the fact that they never tried to strike down state religions (wheter the state laws were just or not is another question) or interfere with anyone's religious practices. (Whether or not they themselves were Christian is beside the point.)

It was not until the mid-twentieth century that activist atheists began misinterpreting the constitution to fit their own agenda by essentially declaring any public display of religion unconstitutional.

Yes, the Supreme Court has been misusing their powers to declare things "constitutional" or not based on their own agendas, and not on what the constitution actually says. This is called 'Judicial activism," and it is a national travesty.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 30 2004, 10:28 AM'] I meant that in public it seems the government doesn't want to acknowledge the power that religion has over its citizens.  Private issues like communion wine aren't in the public sphere. 
What I think I am getting at is that I don't think it is productive to ignore the spiritual in our schools, especially.  There should be resources for students that have faculty support.  Not necessarily endorsement, but some acknowledgment of the influence religion can have.  Prayer meetings around a flag pole don't cut it, young people need to be educated about the legitimacy of believing in God. [/quote]
And that's why you have churches. It's neither the duty nor the province of the government to educate people on religion -- and do you really want them to? Are you sure that they're going to preach correct doctrine?

There are plenty of resources available to students without involving faculty. Some schools even have bible study student organizations. This is deemed fine as long as [b]all[/b] student organizations are allowed. The problem comes when the people who are all for the bible study groups disallow a pagan group, for example.

Oh, and yes, when alcohol is being served to minors communion wine is a part of the public sphere.

Edited November 30, 2004 by burnsspivey

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 30 2004, 10:46 AM'] The first ammendment was created for the purpose of preventing an official federal national religion (like the Church of England) that would force citizens to follow this religion, or only allow people belonging to the "National Church" to hold federal office.

It was never intended to remove any traces of religion from public life.

That this is what the founders intended is clear from the fact that they never tried to strike down state religions (wheter the state laws were just or not is another question) or interfere with anyone's religious practices. (Whether or not they themselves were Christian is beside the point.) [/quote]
With what power would the federal government have stricken down the state churches? It was up to the people of the state to bring a complaint to the courts. That they didn't do this doesn't mean that the states were correct.

[quote]It was not until the mid-twentieth century that activist atheists began misinterpreting the constitution to fit their own agenda by essentially declaring any public display of religion unconstitutional.[/quote]

'It was not until the mid-twentieth century that activist atheists began to reach a point of demi-equality in the eyes of the law.'

[quote]Yes, the Supreme Court has been misusing their powers to declare things "constitutional" or not based on their own agendas, and not on what the constitution actually says.  This is called 'Judicial activism," and it is a national travesty.[/quote]

The Supreme Court's powers are what if not to declare what is constitutional and what is not? Obviously the actual words in the constitution are open to interpretation. The motives of the writers are open to interpretation and some of them vehemently disagreed with each other. So how, then, would you suggest that the Supreme Court decide?

The term "Judicial activism" basically equates with "I don't like your decision" in modern verbiage. However, let me give you a decent analysis of the term:

Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems to defy a common-sense reading of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers. Some see this as a subversion of the democratic process, with a privileged few able to veto the people's elected representatives; others see such rulings as an important balance on lawmakers' power, preventing a tyranny of the majority.

See that last bit? Preventing a tyranny of the majority? Yeah, that's a crucial part of the courts existence.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 29 2004, 11:28 PM'] I would differ with you on the Idea that the founders wanted religious freedom, several colonies where quite serious persecuters of desenting religons. [/quote]
Excuse me... I'm sorry.. a clarification:

Freedom for THEIR religion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 12:29 PM'] With what power would the federal government have stricken down the state churches?  It was up to the people of the state to bring a complaint to the courts.  That they didn't do this doesn't mean that the states were correct.



'It was not until the mid-twentieth century that activist atheists began to reach a point of demi-equality in the eyes of the law.'



The Supreme Court's powers are what if not to declare what is constitutional and what is not?  Obviously the actual words in the constitution are open to interpretation.  The motives of the writers are open to interpretation and some of them vehemently disagreed with each other.  So how, then, would you suggest that the Supreme Court decide?

The term "Judicial activism" basically equates with "I don't like your decision" in modern verbiage.  However, let me give you a decent analysis of the term:

Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems to defy a common-sense reading of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers. Some see this as a subversion of the democratic process, with a privileged few able to veto the people's elected representatives; others see such rulings as an important balance on lawmakers' power, preventing a tyranny of the majority.

See that last bit?  Preventing a tyranny of the majority?  Yeah, that's a crucial part of the courts existence. [/quote]
[quote]With what power would the federal government have stricken down the state churches?  It was up to the people of the state to bring a complaint to the courts.[/quote]

Agreed, they had no such power.

[quote]'It was not until the mid-twentieth century that activist atheists began to reach a point of demi-equality in the eyes of the law.'[/quote]
Atheists were always free to be atheists. This doesn't give them the right to prevent Christians from practicing or expressing their religion freely in public.

[quote]Judges frequently must interpret what the law actually says, but they are often accused of "judicial activism" if their interpretation seems to defy a common-sense reading of the law, especially if their rulings strike down or substantially revise laws passed by actual lawmakers. Some see this as a subversion of the democratic process, with a privileged few able to veto the people's elected representatives; others see such rulings as an important balance on lawmakers' power, preventing a tyranny of the majority[/quote].

If the judges go against common-sense interpretation of the law they are supposed to uphold, and instead, in essence, make their own law based on their own ideas and impose it on others, this sounds like tyranny to me. Their purpose is to uphold law, not change its meaning to fit an agenda.

Maybe this doesn't settle the argument, but I suspect you'd change your "tyranny of the majority" tune real fast if the Supreme Court made a decision you didn't like, such as declaring gay marriage or abortion unconstitutional.

And remember, the Supreme Court declared in the 1854 Dred Scott decision that a slave was property.

Edited November 30, 2004 by Socrates

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 30 2004, 01:53 PM'] Atheists were always free to be atheists. This doesn't give them the right to prevent Christians from practicing or expressing their religion freely in public.

[/quote]
You are correct. No one has argued that they should.

[quote]If the judges go against common-sense interpretation of the law they are supposed to uphold, and instead, in essence, make their own law based on their own ideas and impose it on others, this sounds like tyranny to me.  Their purpose is to uphold law, not change its meaning to fit an agenda.[/quote]

"Common-sense" is not always correct when it comes to legal interpretation. Going against "common-sense" is not necessarily 'making their own law'. Their purpose is not to uphold law, but to interpret it. There is a subtle but important difference.

[quote]Maybe this doesn't settle the argument, but I suspect you'd change your "tyranny of the majority" tune real fast if the Supreme Court made a decision you didn't like, such as declaring gay marriage or abortion unconstitutional.[/quote]

Actually, no. I would simply note that they are wrong -- as humans can sometimes be.

[quote]And remember, the Supreme Court declared in the 1854 Dred Scott decision that a slave was property.[/quote]

And here is an excellent example of just that.

[toledo_jesus]

so Catholics believe they were wrong to legalize abortion...and we also believe they would be wrong to allow homosexuals to "marry".
The prevailing opinion in 1854 was that a slave is property...that was wrong. If the prevailing opinion today is that abortion is not a violation of human rights, or that homosexuals are entitled and ought to enjoy the benefits of "marriage", then that is wrong too.
So what makes it wrong or right? I make my judgments based on what God has been telling us for a while about homosexuality. I don't respect the notion that the Constitution should trump what an overwhelming majority of the people of this country believe, nor that its power is greater than that of God's directives.



I'm moving to Iran. At least there the people I disagree with would have the decency of chopping off my head with a minimum of arrogance.

Edited November 30, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 30 2004, 03:15 PM'] so Catholics believe they were wrong to legalize abortion...and we also believe they would be wrong to allow homosexuals to "marry".
The prevailing opinion in 1854 was that a slave is property...that was wrong. If the prevailing opinion today is that abortion is not a violation of human rights, or that homosexuals are entitled and ought to enjoy the benefits of "marriage", then that is wrong too.
So what makes it wrong or right? I make my judgments based on what God has been telling us for a while about homosexuality. I don't respect the notion that the Constitution should trump what an overwhelming majority of the people of this country believe, nor that its power is greater than that of God's directives.



I'm moving to Iran. At least there the people I disagree with would have the decency of chopping off my head with a minimum of arrogance. [/quote]
[i]Of course [/i]the Constitution should trump any majority of the people. If that majority wants very badly to be right then they should pass an amendment. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- its unfortunate that you don't like it, but there's nothing you can do about it.

Please, move to Iran, the fewer we have of your type here the better country we will have. At least here we allow you to believe what you wish, speak what you wish, live as you wish and interfere (usually) only when your rights come in conflict with others'. If you can't appreciate that then maybe you deserve your fate in Iran.

I hear so much about how I'm unpatriotic because I don't buy everything that comes out of Bush's mouth. People who say things like this are the ones who are truly unpatriotic. Still, though I don't like what you have to say I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 05:28 PM']
Please, move to Iran, the fewer we have of your type here the better country we will have. At least here we allow you to believe what you wish, speak what you wish, live as you wish and interfere (usually) only when your rights come in conflict with others'. If you can't appreciate that then maybe you deserve your fate in Iran.

[/quote]
and yet I have to put up with such enlightened souls as yourself who, so full of wisdom and experience, feel obligated to relieve me of my naiveté.
Forgive me if I appeared to favor Iranian forums for dissent over the American system. I would of course prefer the slower, more excruciating process of being taught the error of my ways.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 30 2004, 05:32 PM'] and yet I have to put up with such enlightened souls as yourself who, so full of wisdom and experience, feel obligated to relieve me of my naiveté.
Forgive me if I appeared to favor Iranian forums for dissent over the American system. I would of course prefer the slower, more excruciating process of being taught the error of my ways. [/quote]
America: you have to put up with dissenting opinions.

Iran: you die.

Oh the pain of choosing. *staples back of hand to forehead*

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Still, though I don't like what you have to say I'll defend to the death your right to say it. [/quote]


You know I have always thought tat one of the stupidest sayings I have ever heard, thats not an attack on you Burns I have always though it was stupid, there are many things that shouldn't be said they are wrong to say, just as they are wrong to do... why would anyone defend the right to do something morally wrong certianly why would anyone defend to the death the right to say or do what was wrong, whata ludicrus position.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 1 2004, 02:21 PM']

You know I have always thought tat one of the stupidest sayings I have ever heard, thats not an attack on you Burns I have always though it was stupid, there are many things that shouldn't be said they are wrong to say, just as they are wrong to do... why would anyone defend the right to do something morally wrong certianly why would anyone defend to the death the right to say or do what was wrong, whata ludicrus position. [/quote]
Exactly... that's why it's no surprise when you hear that the person to say it was Voltaire... what d'ya know.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 1 2004, 01:21 PM']

You know I have always thought tat one of the stupidest sayings I have ever heard, thats not an attack on you Burns I have always though it was stupid, there are many things that shouldn't be said they are wrong to say, just as they are wrong to do... why would anyone defend the right to do something morally wrong certianly why would anyone defend to the death the right to say or do what was wrong, whata ludicrus position. [/quote]
Because it's your right to say it and I would rather you have the option to say something that I find both morally reprehensible and offensive than to have speech regulated. Any standard that regulates speech (beyond that which prevents direct danger/harm) is odious and unecessary. Regulating speech is half a step from regulating thought.

Of course, what I don't like a person to say you may not consider morally wrong, so your analogy doesn't really hold up.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 30 2004, 11:08 AM']And thus your point is what? That Jefferson was a hypocrite? 




[/quote]
That wasn't really my point, but it would certainly be true. Or perhaps "politician" would be more accurate. My point is, the founders had no problem funding religious events or prayers or whatever, even if only for political means.

[quote]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. [/quote]

This is completely false. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the SC authority to interpret the Consitution. Can you provide a source for this absurd claim? It is a very common, but very very wrongheaded, assumption. If this were the case, they would have the power to make themselves the highest authority in the land (which hey have effectively done anyway, but this was through a usurpation of power, not legal entitlement). Article III provides the duties and limits of judicial authority. I'll not post here (for the sake of brevity), but you can look for yourself. It's not there. The original intent does matter, or the Constitution is completely worthless.


[quote] 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."[/quote]

You are quote there is from Justice Hugo Black who wrote the opinion of the court in that case. The man was an idiot (as were most of the people on the court at the time, all but two being Roosevelt appointees) and a freemason. Do a little investigating into his history, especially as a trial lawyer in Alabama, and you will see how credible he is. Definatley in the top ten worst S.C. justices in history (along with William Brennan, who was the worst; Harry Blackmun, Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, et alia). Where did he get the statement? Why did he interject it into the opinion? The statement is merely [i]dictum[/i] which means that it is excess information, opinion or editorializing, having no impact on that case, nor any authority by way of precedent.

[quote]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.[/quote]

This is completely irrelevant. What we are discussing is not what we prefer; rather, what is true. We are discussing the way in which the Founders and Framers set up this government. I'm not arguing for a state religion (though I would be happy to do so). I am arguing that the Constitution allows the states to establish a religion, by not forbidding them from doing so and by acknowledging their right to do so in the First Amendment.

[quote]Their purpose is not to uphold law, but to interpret it.[/quote]

For the reasons stated above, this is incorrect.