Religious Liberty

[Mick Jagger]

May 27, 2008

Wisconsin Sheriff Has No Right To Impose Religion On Employees, Americans United Tells Appeals Court

Church-State Watchdog Says Required Attendance At ‘Fellowship Of Christian Centurions’ Events Violated Constitution

A Wisconsin sheriff has no right to compel his employees to attend presentations by an evangelical Christian group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans United asserts that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke violated the separation of church and state when he required deputies to attend presentations by the Fellowship of Christian Centurions (FCC). (The FCC is an organization formed by members of an evangelical church in Brookfield, Wisc.)

FCC representatives spoke at 16 mandatory roll call events where they proselytized attendees and passed out materials reflecting their religious views. A Roman Catholic deputy and a Muslim deputy objected to the speeches, but Clarke continued to hold them.

“Government officials can’t impose their religious beliefs on employees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Sheriff Clarke’s job is to uphold the law and the Constitution, not undermine it.”

Americans United’s legal brief points out that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have repeatedly said that government officials may not coerce people to take part in religious activities.

“This anti-coercion principle forbids government officials not only from requiring their subordinates to participate in religious activities such as prayer or Bible-reading, but also from requiring them to attend events at which prayers are said or proselytizing speeches are made,” asserts the AU brief.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled in September of 2007 that Clarke’s actions amounted to a coercive promotion of religion. Clarke later filed an appeal before the 7th Circuit.

AU’s legal brief in the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Association v. Clarke case was written by Louis Cohen, Heather Gomes and Ryan Foreman of the Washington, D.C., office of the international law firm WilmerHale, in consultation with AU Legal Director Ayesha Khan and AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser.

* * * *

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

[air311]

May 27, 2008

Wisconsin Sheriff Has No Right To Impose Religion On Employees, Americans United Tells Appeals Court

Church-State Watchdog Says Required Attendance At ‘Fellowship Of Christian Centurions’ Events Violated Constitution

A Wisconsin sheriff has no right to compel his employees to attend presentations by an evangelical Christian group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans United asserts that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke violated the separation of church and state when he required deputies to attend presentations by the Fellowship of Christian Centurions (FCC). (The FCC is an organization formed by members of an evangelical church in Brookfield, Wisc.)

FCC representatives spoke at 16 mandatory roll call events where they proselytized attendees and passed out materials reflecting their religious views. A Roman Catholic deputy and a Muslim deputy objected to the speeches, but Clarke continued to hold them.

“Government officials can’t impose their religious beliefs on employees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Sheriff Clarke’s job is to uphold the law and the Constitution, not undermine it.”

Americans United’s legal brief points out that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have repeatedly said that government officials may not coerce people to take part in religious activities.

“This anti-coercion principle forbids government officials not only from requiring their subordinates to participate in religious activities such as prayer or Bible-reading, but also from requiring them to attend events at which prayers are said or proselytizing speeches are made,” asserts the AU brief.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled in September of 2007 that Clarke’s actions amounted to a coercive promotion of religion. Clarke later filed an appeal before the 7th Circuit.

AU’s legal brief in the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Association v. Clarke case was written by Louis Cohen, Heather Gomes and Ryan Foreman of the Washington, D.C., office of the international law firm WilmerHale, in consultation with AU Legal Director Ayesha Khan and AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser.

* * * *

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
How long before this gets moved to ARP?

[bootlen]

Hey! Mick Jagger posted it. All he knows is music. Not geography.

[Mick Jagger]

Some say the Constitution does nothing more that prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion and would say that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke did nothing that was prohibited.

[air311]

Some say the Constitution does nothing more that prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion and would say that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke did nothing that was prohibited.

He has no right to try and force religion on his deputies. Just like no boss in any company has a right to force that crap on anyone working there.

[BaldLoonie]

How long before this gets moved to ARP?


Not long :D

[bootlen]

Gee, t'anks, Baldie.

[Mick Jagger]

What's ARP?

[k-fridge]

What's ARP?

America. Religion, and Politics.

Welcome to the forum. The rules are a bit different here due to the nature of the topics we discuss. Please click on the link below to familiarize yourself with them. We allow free discussion, but we do require a certain amount of respect and civility from our members.

Enjoy. :)

ARPC

[bootlen]

WHOOOAAA! Hyperspace!!!!

[Mick Jagger]

He has no right to try and force religion on his deputies. Just like no boss in any company has a right to force that crap on anyone working there.
He has no right to use his civil authority to even slightly influence the religion of others.

[sysint]

He does in Texas.

[whec720]

He has no right to try and force religion on his deputies. Just like no boss in any company has a right to force that crap on anyone working there.

Does that go for the unions too, who constantly send me crap through the mail, urging me to vote for the latest Democrat meat head to run for elected office? :p:D

[tunnel_rat]

Does that go for the unions too, who constantly send me crap through the mail, urging me to vote for the latest Democrat meat head to run for elected office? :p:D


I'm just guessing they didn't ask you which candidate you wanted your dues sent to either.....

[air311]

Does that go for the unions too, who constantly send me crap through the mail, urging me to vote for the latest Democrat meat head to run for elected office? :p:D

I'm with you on that one. I get that union crap too. Seems like once you're in a union, you can't ever get away from em.

[Mick Jagger]

Has anyone heard about the recently discovered documents revealing that President Washington consulted with James Madison during the Spring and Summer of 1789 regarding the pressure GW was getting from the Calvinists to declare a national day of prayer?

Madison supposedly advised him not to do it unless Congress asked him to. The documents also reveal that the establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was a sham to fool the Calvinists.

[k-fridge]

Has anyone heard about the recently discovered documents revealing that President Washington consulted with James Madison during the Spring and Summer of 1789 regarding the pressure GW was getting from the Calvinists to declare a national day of prayer?

Madison supposedly advised him not to do it unless Congress asked him to. The documents also reveal that the establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was a sham to fool the Calvinists.
Let me guess....you're an AU member?

[Mick Jagger]

Let me guess....you're an AU member? The AU is too conservative for me. I believe in total all out war against any sort of civil authority over religion.

[k-fridge]

The AU is too conservative for me. I believe in total all out war against any sort of civil authority over religion.
Uh-huh. Tell Barry Lynn howdy when you next speak with him. :p

[Mick Jagger]

Uh-huh. Tell Barry Lynn howdy when you next speak with him. :p


The Constitution’s Establishment Clause, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits governmental entities from making “any law respecting an establishment of religion.” The “touchstone” of the Clause is “‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’”

--Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.2006) (quoting McCreary Co. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005)).

What wrong with the above statement?

[k-fridge]

The Constitution’s Establishment Clause, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits governmental entities from making “any law respecting an establishment of religion.” The “touchstone” of the Clause is “‘the principle that the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’”

--Vision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.2006) (quoting McCreary Co. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005)).What wrong with the above statement?

I'm a big supporter of the first amendment, I just disagree with how some groups have interpreted it. The AU is one of those groups I disagree with. They are not honest about their agenda.

This from their website...


The single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the Religious Right

It's about politics.

[Special Ed]

I as an employer would never compel an employee or make it a condition of their employment to attend any rally of a religious nature. And I'm even considered a right-wing fundie by some.

And, no, sys, it's not right even if you live in Texas. Do you have something against Texas?

[Special Ed]

Has anyone heard about the recently discovered documents revealing that President Washington consulted with James Madison during the Spring and Summer of 1789 regarding the pressure GW was getting from the Calvinists to declare a national day of prayer?

Madison supposedly advised him not to do it unless Congress asked him to. The documents also reveal that the establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was a sham to fool the Calvinists.


Do you even know (without Googling it) what a Calvinist is? And if you're not a Calvinist then what would you more than likely be?

[RoBoTeq]

My first wife worked for a couple of religious looneys (my opinion) who owned an HVAC company. They required all workers to be at the office a half hour before they were on the clock for prayer meetings.

After about three years of this, one of the guys who left the company sued them for back wages. My ex was then no longer employed by them but was called in as a witness. Every employee who worked for this company for those three years got back pay for the time spent at those prayer meetings. Justice was served by the State getting involved with the Church:cool:.

[Andy Schoen]

America. Religion, and Politics.

Welcome to the forum. The rules are a bit different here due to the nature of the topics we discuss. Please click on the link below to familiarize yourself with them. We allow free discussion, but we do require a certain amount of respect and civility from our members.

Enjoy. :)

ARPC
And we appreciate those who post to this ARP forum more if they have some affiliation with the hvac/r industry.

But if you're really Mick Jagger, we can make an exception. :D

Mind expanding your line of thinking on the difference between church-state and God-state? Is not the latter acceptable? Or do you reject the practice of our US Senate to have a chaplain?

[Mick Jagger]

I'm a big supporter of the first amendment, I just disagree with how some groups have interpreted it. The First Amendment's two religion clauses were unnecessary and probably did more harm than good by implying that the original unamended Constitution didn't guard religion from the power of the government.


The AU is one of those groups I disagree with. They are not honest about their agenda. Why do you say that?

[Mick Jagger]

Mind expanding your line of thinking on the difference between church-state and God-state? Huh?


Is not the latter acceptable?
What's a "God-State?"


do you reject the practice of our US Senate to have a chaplain? "Religion" is "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it." The Constitution grants Congress no power whatsoever over religion.

Congress was granted no power to impose upon the people the duty to financially support a Congressional Chaplain's views regarding religion. Let Congress pay for it's Chaplains out of their own pockets.

[tonys]

- you must be hurt'n if you need a Chaplain 'on staff'
...always at the ready with those wonderful fairy tails...I mean 'scriptures'.

[Mick Jagger]

What do the Mayflower Compact and the Constitution of Iraq have in common?

[Slatts]

What do the Mayflower Compact and the Constitution of Iraq have in common?

I give up Mick....:confused:

[sline-dawg]

I googled that question...:o ...:eek:

[sysint]

They are both religious based in origin.

[Mick Jagger]

What do the Mayflower Compact and the Constitution of Iraq have in common? They both start with, "In the name of God." The Pilgrims and the Shiites share the view that civil government derives its authority from God. The founders, of course, rejected that idea in favor of the principle that government derives its legitimacy from the people.

[Andy Schoen]

Huh?


What's a "God-State?"

"Religion" is "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it." The Constitution grants Congress no power whatsoever over religion.

Congress was granted no power to impose upon the people the duty to financially support a Congressional Chaplain's views regarding religion. Let Congress pay for it's Chaplains out of their own pockets.

Ahem, I was hoping to see some intelligent posting on this subject. :(

Let me simplify in the hopes something interesting might emerge.

My phrase "church-state" refers to the state advocating a given church and its religion or, in its extreme, caesaropapism. Google it if you need.

"God-state" refers to the state simply advocating the practice of monotheism without preference to a church. Again, Google if you need.

You say the U.S. congress "has no power whatsoever over religion." Are you saying it is absolutely improper for anyone in our U.S. government to advocate the belief in God? Are you saying the U.S. government should advocate atheism?

As I pointed out, the US Senate employs a chaplain, so one can easily argue they're advocating monotheism.

[Mick Jagger]

"God-state" refers to the state simply advocating the practice of monotheism without preference to a church. OK


You say the U.S. congress "has no power whatsoever over religion." Are you saying it is absolutely improper for anyone in our U.S. government to advocate the belief in God? Yes. The Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever over religion. Belief in the existence of God is the first tenant in every Christian sect's religious creed. Disbelief is the first tenet of the non believers creed.


Are you saying the U.S. government should advocate atheism?
No. It should have no religious opinions except that one should obey his conscience, rather than the wishes of the civil authorities, in matters of religion.


As I pointed out, the US Senate employs a chaplain, so one can easily argue they're advocating monotheism.
The establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was, as is still, an assumption of authority not granted by the Constitution.

[sline-dawg]

OK
The establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was, as is still, an assumption of authority not granted by the Constitution.


They were the first lobbyist......;)


Where you want to go with this anyhow...? No right to God.... No right away from God...... No Dominance either way..... Free for all......:confused:

[Andy Schoen]

The establishment of the Congressional Chaplainships was, as is still, an assumption of authority not granted by the Constitution.
Jefferson and Madison were responsible for writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which is the basis for our First Amendment on freedom of religion. Their writing clearly shows them to believe in God, and it done in response to the Church of England, i.e., caesaropapism. I think they would find your objections on a "Constitutional" basis to congressional chaplainships laughable.

[Mick Jagger]

They were the first lobbyist......;)


Where you want to go with this anyhow...? No right to God.... No right away from God...... No Dominance either way..... Free for all......:confused:

The Constitution excludes religion from the authority of the government.

[Mick Jagger]

Jefferson and Madison were responsible for writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which is the basis for our First Amendment on freedom of religion. That is debatable. However, even if true, it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever over religion.


Their writing clearly shows them to believe in God, and it done in response to the Church of England, i.e., caesaropapism. What writing are you talking about?


I think they would find your objections on a "Constitutional" basis to congressional chaplainships laughable. You think whatever you want, dude. It won't change the fact that the Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.

[k-fridge]

Sure is taking you a long time to respond Mick. Are you having to wait on instructions from the mother ship? :p

[Andy Schoen]

What writing are you talking about?

The text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which Madison and Jefferson authored is available on the internet. Do you need help finding it? :confused:

[Mick Jagger]

Sure is taking you a long time to respond Mick. Are you having to wait on instructions from the mother ship? :p

I had to go smoke a joint with Keith and Ron.

[Mick Jagger]

The text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which Madison and Jefferson authored is available on the internet. Do you need help finding it? :confused: Nope. I just wanted to know what you meant.

[Mick Jagger]

Their writing clearly shows them to believe in God... How does that change the fact that the framers of the Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction over religion?


and it done in response to the Church of England I thought the Virgina "Religious Bill" was a response to "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion." However, even if you are correct, it doesn't change the fact that the framers of the Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction over religion

[Andy Schoen]

Nope. I just wanted to know what you meant.
Cool dude. You keep stating the "Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion", and you don't seem to know the basis for the part of the First Amendment which grants freedom of religion. You need to study Madison and Jefferson. ;)

[Andy Schoen]

I thought the Virgina "Religious Bill" was a response to "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion."
You better google some more. :rolleyes:


However, even if you are correct, it doesn't change the fact that the framers of the Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction over religion
Madison is considered the significant author of the original Constitution. The freedom of religion is in its Bill of Rights, which Madison was largely responsible. Google some more. :rolleyes:

[Mick Jagger]

Cool dude. You keep stating the "Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion...
I say it because it is true and it needs to be said.


and you don't seem to know the basis for the part of the First Amendment which grants freedom of religion. You don't seem to know that the First Amendment was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't give the government any power whatsoever over religion. The First Amendment did as much harm as good, by implying that the government once had jurisdiction over religion.


You need to study Madison and Jefferson. You need to study the rules of construction.


There are...rules of construction [that apply to legal instruments], dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms.

--James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 40, interpreting the legal instrument that authorized the convention that framed the U. S. Constitution.

[glennac]

That is debatable. However, even if true, it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution grants the government no power whatsoever over religion.

What writing are you talking about?

You think whatever you want, dude. It won't change the fact that the Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.


Mick, Let's first define what "goverment" is. The 1st Amendment refers to Congress not the states or local goverment. It means that "Congress" cannot make a law either establishing a religion or prohibiting the exercise of it. The states or local governments are not covered in anyway by the Constitution on the issue of religion and there is no statement or clause in the Constitution on your little pet issue of "separation of Church and State.
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#exp). Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791. Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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 (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

Next, the 10th Amendment basically gives all rights not implicitly granted to the Federal Government to the States and the People. So if a state wants to support a religion or belief there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#BoR) 12/15/1791. Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am10)
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.

Now since the liberal and leftist Justices who have been appointed to our Supreme Court over the last 75 years or so have ruled against the Constitution and what it stands for. So if you want to argue on your "Separation of Church and State" crusade please don't refer to the Constitution to back up your false claims.

Are you a member of that anti American group called "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State". Sure sounds like it. That group wants to forbid the mention of God and any and all forms of mentioning of a higher being out of all public institutions in the US. You sure sound like a shill for them.

[Andy Schoen]

I say it because it is true and it needs to be said.
I think you and Keith need another smoke. ;)


You don't seem to know that the First Amendment was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't give the government any power whatsoever over religion.
Perhaps you should mention this to James Madison. He wrote most of it. :p


You need to study the rules of construction.
How about following a consistent line of debate? At the moment, you're arguing the Feds shouldn't be establishing a religion (duh), and that there should be no congressional chaplainships, because you say so. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

[Mick Jagger]

Mick, Let's first define what "goverment" is. The 1st Amendment refers to Congress not the states or local goverment. True. It is also true that even before the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the instrument granted the government no power whatsoever over religion.


It means that "Congress" cannot make a law either establishing a religion or prohibiting the exercise of it. It's meaning is debatable. However, regardless of what it means, the Constitution grants the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.


The states or local governments are not covered in anyway by the Constitution on the issue of religion That was true until the 14th Amendment was passed.


and there is no statement or clause in the Constitution on "separation of Church and State. True. It is also true that the original unamended U. S. Constitution separated/excluded religion from the cognizance and jurisdiction of the U. S. Government and the 14th Amendment prohibits any government from infringing on that right.


Next, the 10th Amendment basically gives all rights not implicitly granted to the Federal Government to the States and the People. The Amendment doesn't even contain the word "rights."


So if a state wants to support a religion or belief there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit it. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from supporting a religion.


"Americans United for the Separation of Church and State"....That group wants to forbid the mention of God and any and all forms of mentioning of a higher being out of all public institutions in the US. I thought AU wanted to prevent more civil authority over religion.

[Mick Jagger]

Perhaps you should mention this to James Madison. He wrote most of it. James Madison also understood that even without the First Amendment there was "not a shadow of a right" for the U. S. Government to intervene or intrude into religion.


At the moment, you're arguing the Feds shouldn't be establishing a religion (duh), and that there should be no congressional chaplainships, because you say so. The Constitution, interpreted according to the common law "rules of construct" that prevailed a the time the instrument was made, grants the government no power whatsoever to establish religious chaplainships and force the people to support them.

[Andy Schoen]

James Madison also understood that even without the First Amendment there was "not a shadow of a right" for the U. S. Government to intervene or intrude into religion.
You're still stating the obvious, unless you're trying to sell the idea that even the recognition of monotheistic belief is "intrusion into religion" from Madison's viewpoint.

As Tsalagi1 might ask, is it your goal in life to post separation of church arguments on any web site that might accept them? http://www.perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=175475&forum_id=98 You certainly can't be in the hvac/r trade... you wouldn't have enough time. :D

[Mick Jagger]

...the recognition of monotheistic belief is "intrusion into religion"... If the "recognition" is coupled with a recommendation, suggestion or hint from the civil authorities regarding our religious convictions - such as whether or not we should declare that, "In God We Trust" or that we are "one nation under God" - the "recognition" becomes an assumption of authority over religion. The U. S. Government was never granted any authority whatsoever, not even "recommendatory" or "advisory" authority, over religion.

[Andy Schoen]

If a religion argues Nature is God, would not our Government's acknowledgement and recognition of Nature violate your philosophy on the separation of church and state? Or is it simply Government can acknowledge Nature because we know it exists, even if we don't completely understand it? Ban "In God We Trust" but "In Nature We Trust" is ok. :eek:

[glennac]

True. It is also true that even before the First Amendment was added to the Constitution, the instrument granted the government no power whatsoever over religion.

It's meaning is debatable. However, regardless of what it means, the Constitution grants the government no jurisdiction whatsoever over religion.

That was true until the 14th Amendment was passed.

True. It is also true that the original unamended U. S. Constitution separated/excluded religion from the cognizance and jurisdiction of the U. S. Government and the 14th Amendment prohibits any government from infringing on that right.

The Amendment doesn't even contain the word "rights."

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from supporting a religion.

I thought AU wanted to prevent more civil authority over religion.

Here is your precious 14th Amendment. No where in there does it address religion or limiting state and local governments from recognizing or support a religion. I hope you can explain that a logical straight forward way instead of given some far out con-cocked version of what you think is says. I am curious as to what you have to say about that.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am14) 7/9/1868. Note (http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am14) History (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14)
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DEPRIVE) any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html) of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS) the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#APPORTIONMENT) among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

I see nothing there addressing religion or any limitnation on the support of it imposed on state and local goverments.

[glennac]

It also can be argued that of all the Amendments to the Constitution, the 14th could never legally pass muster now or ever as Amendment to the Constitution. It was illegally passed in Congress without representatives of the Southern States being present and allowed to vote. Then the ratification by Southern States became a "condition" for them to have representation in Congress.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
Controversy over ratification
A number of individuals argue that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment violated Article V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution. For instance, Bruce Ackerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Ackerman) argues that:

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by a rump Congress that did not include representatives and senators from most of the former Confederate states, and, had those congressmen been present, the Amendment would never have passed.
Former Confederate states were counted for Article V purposes of ratification, but were not counted for Article I purposes of representation in the Congress.
The ratifications of the former Confederate states were not truly free, but were coerced. For instance, many former Confederate states had their re-admittance to the Union conditioned on ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion#cite_note-21)
In 1968, the Utah Supreme Court diverged from the habeas corpus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus) issue in a case to express its resentment against recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court under the Fourteenth Amendment, and to attack the Amendment itself:
In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal. To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of the Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met? How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in the Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion#cite_note-22)

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

It can be argued more easily that the 14th Amendment is not valid than one can find a clause in the 14th prohibiting a state from supporting or recognizing a religion.

[Mick Jagger]

If a religion argues Nature is God, would not our Government's acknowledgment and recognition of Nature violate your philosophy on the separation of church and state? What acknowledgment and recognition are you talking about?

[Mick Jagger]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States What "privileges or immunities" do citizens of the United States have with respect to religion?


nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law Does the concept of "liberty" include religious liberty? If so, what exactly is religious liberty?

[k-fridge]

What "privileges or immunities" do citizens of the United States have with respect to religion?

Does the concept of "liberty" include religious liberty? If so, what exactly is religious liberty?
Easy...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Free exercise. Though many (including your group, AU) have tried to limit free exercise, it is a constitutional right afforded to all citizens of the US. This right does not end simply because we walk through the door of a government building or because we are employed by the state.

[Mick Jagger]

Mick Jagger:
What "privileges or immunities" do citizens of the United States have with respect to religion?

Fridge:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

What exact is the "privilege or immunity" established by the establishment clause? What all is covered by the word "religion" and who exactly is prohibited from establishing it?

[k-fridge]

What all is covered by the word "religion" and who exactly is prohibited from establishing it?
Your answer is clearly spelled out in the 1st amendment.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.

Congress. And since this is a federal document, it's referring to the US Congress alone.

I think your in over your head here Mick, we have some constitutional scholars on this board.

[Mick Jagger]

Free exercise...it is a constitutional right afforded to all citizens of the US. Is it also a privilege or immunity of U. S. Citizens. If so, what exactly is the privilege or immunity citizens havce with respect to the free exercise of religion?


Though many (including your group, AU) have tried to limit free exercise.. I was not aware of that. What exactly are you talking about, my dear friend?

[Mick Jagger]

Your answer is clearly spelled out in the 1st amendment. What exactly does the word "religion" in the establishment clause mean?

[k-fridge]

Is it also a privilege or immunity of U. S. Citizens. If so, what exactly is the privilege or immunity with respect to the free exercise of religion?

And where did you get the immunity part? That word is not contained in the 1st amendment.


I was not aware of that. What exactly are you talking about?
You (AU members) all use the same rhetoric, even down to the exact wording and canned responses.


What exactly is the right?
All US citizens have the right to freely practice religion. Congress cannot abridge that right.

[k-fridge]

What exactly does the word "religion" in the establishment clause mean?
That can be debated, I think it means a worship of a higher power or supreme being.

[glennac]

For what it is worth I would like to repeat a line at the bottom of my last rather long post which was probably over looked by most.

It can be argued more easily that the 14th Amendment is not valid than one can find a clause in the 14th prohibiting a state from supporting or recognizing a religion.

[Mick Jagger]

Congress. And since this is a federal document, it's referring to the US Congress alone. Are you saying that the "privilege and immunity" guarded by the 14th Amendment from abridgment by State governments, is nothing more than a privilege to be free from an establishment of religion by Congress? Or, are you saying that the "privilege and immunity" guarded by the 14th Amendment from abridgment by State governments, guards citizens of a state against establishments of religion by state authorities?

[Mick Jagger]

That can be debated, I think it means a worship of a higher power or supreme being. What rules and principles do you use to ascertain the meaning of words used in legal instruments made in 1789 or thereabouts?

[Mick Jagger]

It can be argued more easily that the 14th Amendment is not valid
The time for raising that issue has passed.

[k-fridge]

Are you saying that the "privilege and immunity" guarded by the 14th Amendment from abridgment by State governments, is nothing more than a privilege to be free from an establishment of religion by Congress? Or, are you saying that the "privilege and immunity" guarded by the 14th Amendment from abridgment by State governments, guards citizens of a state against establishments of religion by state authorities?
The 14th amendment dealt with the rights of naturalized citizens and does not erase state's rights in any way. This is the crux of AU's argument and you have no leg to stand on.

The legalities of the 14th amendment are also in question since it was never properly ratified.

[sline-dawg]

the bottom of my last rather long post which was probably over looked by most.


:D :D God knows we try......;)

[Mick Jagger]

The 14th amendment dealt with the rights of naturalized citizens and does not erase state's rights in any way. This is the crux of AU's argument and you have no leg to stand on. What argument are you talking about?

[k-fridge]

What rules and principles do you use to ascertain the meaning of words used in legal instruments made in 1789 or thereabouts?
The rules and principles of the time. The constitution is not a "living, breathing" document.

Yard work calls, I'll be back to prove you wrong some more later. :p

[k-fridge]

What argument are you talking about?

I'm sure you're well aware of AU's agenda and methods.

[Mick Jagger]

The rules and principles of the time. What were the common law rules of legal instrument interpretation when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were made?


The constitution is not a "living, breathing" document.
So how did the U. S. acquire Louisiana from the French? How did Congress get the power to establish the U. S. Air Force?

[Mick Jagger]

AU's agenda


Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947,
the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Americans United protects separation of church and state by working on a wide range of pressing political and social issues.

The public square is a place where all viewpoints should be welcome. To encourage individual expression and prevent the government from endorsing religion, the constitutional principle of church-state separation forbids government, or those acting on its behalf, from expressing an official religious viewpoint. Unfortunately, this principle is often violated by state-sponsored religious, sectarian prayers at government meetings, and by many other state-sponsored activities.

When the government or government officials get behind one religious message, it sends the message to adherents that they are more valuable, and all others are less valuable, members of the political community. Leaving religious expression to private citizens ensures that the government will treat everyone equally.

Religious groups should have the right to meet and worship without undue government interference. Individuals must have the right to choose a religion for themselves, if any. This includes the right to express beliefs through the structure of a formal denomination or through private channels. The government should be permitted to infringe on religious liberty only in extremely rare instances where a clear and compelling government interest is demonstrated. All religions that abide by the laws of the country should be seen as equal in the eyes of the state.

[Andy Schoen]

What acknowledgment and recognition are you talking about?


What "privileges or immunities" do citizens of the United States have with respect to religion?


Does the concept of "liberty" include religious liberty? If so, what exactly is religious liberty?


What exact is the "privilege or immunity" established by the establishment clause? What all is covered by the word "religion" and who exactly is prohibited from establishing it?


What exactly does the word "religion" in the establishment clause mean?

When one cannot provide a good response to a stated position during a debate, feigning misunderstanding or admitting a lack of knowledge on the subject by simply asking for additional detail is a bad tactic. A better approach is to make a straw man argument. You can restate your opposition's argument any way you want, and in a manner that might return you to subject matter that you may know something about. ;)

[mrs reb77]

Actually, being only a voyeur on this debate, I've reached a conclusion regarding the debating skills of one Mick Jagger.



Mick is a....female. ;)

Round and round she goes, where she stops, no one knows.....feminine logic. :D

[Andy Schoen]

Round and round she goes, where she stops, no one knows.....feminine logic. :D
LOL!!! I must ponder on how to respond...

I know, err, I think I'm aware of a female... Mmmmm... who has sort of argued in a somewhat logical fashion of sorts... :o

[Mick Jagger]

When one cannot provide a good response to a stated position during a debate, feigning misunderstanding or admitting a lack of knowledge on the subject by simply asking for additional detail is a bad tactic. I don't debate ambiguous propositions.

[Mick Jagger]

He does in Texas.

The Texas Constitution's Bill of Right contains the "No human authority...in any case whatever" clause that the Conservative Counterfeit Christians despise so much because they believe the government has as much jurisdiction over religion as does God.





The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 6 - FREEDOM OF WORSHIP


All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

[sysint]

Let me give you a lesson in practicality. The Baptist Congressmen are passing laws against the FLDS. The Baptist judge is still trying to evade whatever their constitution states and is being largely successful so I'd say you are misinterpreting the Constitution of Texas should you think otherwise.

[Mick Jagger]

What were the common law rules of legal instrument interpretation when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were made? Look on page 59 of the book James Madison said was in the hand of every man at the Virginia Convention of 1788 on the Ratification of the Federal Constitution.


So how did the U. S. acquire Louisiana from the French? How did Congress get the power to establish the U. S. Air Force? The Constitution, as a living breathing instrument, grew to allow the acquisition of Louisiana and the establishment of an Air Force.

[k-fridge]

'Talking' to yourself Mick? :p

[bootlen]

'Talking' to yourself Mick? :p

Argues with himself, too. And I bet he loses most of those arguments.

[Mick Jagger]

What does "privileges or immunities" mean?

[tonys]

this is a discussion board, not a MoFo on-line Dictionary.

[Andy Schoen]

this is a discussion board, not a MoFo on-line Dictionary.

Mick’s debate methodology is to continually restate the obvious, i.e. the principle of separation of church and state which our Government is founded, and then continually request definitions whenever someone argues the point that it is not contrary to the U.S. Constitution for our Government to reference God as done with our coinage. Might as well argue with a parakeet. :rolleyes:

[glennac]

Mick’s debate methodology is to continually restate the obvious, i.e. the principle of separation of church and state which our Government is founded, and then continually request definitions whenever someone argues the point that it is not contrary to the U.S. Constitution for our Government to reference God as done with our coinage. Might as well argue with a parakeet. :rolleyes:

Furthermore he is on this forum to sell the cause of the AU (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State). He will play like a broken record and will not engage in an honest debate with you. He is the master of spin and double talk and is on a crusade to sell his and their warped point of view of he Constitution. He reads from their play book with canned responses as K fridge pointed out several times. It gets old after a while and that's how he gets his kicks.:rolleyes:

[Andy Schoen]

He is the master of spin and double talk
Hardly. A master of spin and double talk would far better than this. And would at least know how to construct a decent straw man argument. :D

[glennac]

Hardly. A master of spin and double talk would far better than this. And would at least know how to construct a decent straw man argument. :D

I stand corrected.:D:D:D

[Mick Jagger]

Mick’s debate methodology is to continually restate the obvious, i.e. the principle of separation of church and state which our Government is founded, and then continually request definitions The words in a legal instrument have to be defined in order to ascertain what the instrument means.

[Mick Jagger]

What does "privileges or immunities" mean?
Words [in a constitution] are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use....terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science... where words are clearly repugnant in two laws, the later law takes place of the elder...

--The First Common Law Rule of Constitution

[Mick Jagger]

Let me give you a lesson in practicality. The Baptist Congressmen are passing laws against the FLDS. The Baptist judge is still trying to evade whatever their constitution states and is being largely successful so I'd say you are misinterpreting the Constitution of Texas should you think otherwise.
Show us where the Texas Constitution allows the passing of laws against the religion of the FLDS.

[Mick Jagger]

Does the concept of "liberty" include religious liberty? Yes.


If so, what exactly is religious liberty? A government with no authority to influence religion. That's why the lawmakers granted the government no power whatsoever over religion when they made the U. S. Constitution.

[sysint]

Show us where the Texas Constitution allows the passing of laws against the religion of the FLDS.I'm pointing out the practical application. Please pay attention to what I'm writing.

If you have a problem with that reality, you need to contact the state of Texas and air out your grievance there.

They have congressmen freely admitting changing law to deal with FLDS. Law was passed. Since those laws weren't overturned I say the reality is that it was allowed.

[k-fridge]

Mick, now you're having a conversation with yourself. Starting to worry me dude.

Plus you post the same stuff over and over.

[Mick Jagger]

sysint:

Why don't you show us the laws your believe prohibit the religion of the FLDS, or shut your pie hole.

[Mick Jagger]

Mick, now you're having a conversation with yourself. Starting to worry me dude.

Plus you post the same stuff over and over. You apparently get off on trading insults, dude. I don't. You're just wasting your time trying to get me to play your childish game.

[Mick Jagger]

Given that the original unamended Constitution granted the government no authority whatsoever over arms or religion, I don't see why the First and Second Amendments were even necessary. Nor do I see why we should care much about what they mean.

The lawmakers clearly didn't want the federal government to have any jurisdiction whatsoever regarding arms or religion. The only question is whether we interpret those denials of power broadly or narrowly.

[k-fridge]

You apparently get off on trading insults, dude. I don't. You're just wasting your time trying to get me to play your childish game.

Mick,

I'm not trading insults with you. You are responding to your own posts over and over again and recycling using the same 2 or 3 phrases that you use. I'm not sure what your agenda here is, but you're very close to violating the spam rules. We welcome good discussion here, but we don't take kindly to the spreading of propaganda...and it's looking more each day like that's why you're here.

Consider yourself cautioned.

ARPC

[Admin]

sysint:

Why don't you show us the laws your believe prohibit the religion of the FLDS, or shut your pie hole.

"shut your pie hole?........"Sorry Mick Jagger, but this is unacceptable on this forum. The ARP Committee has warned you, and now I have.Any further violations, and you are history.

[sysint]

sysint:

Why don't you show us the laws your believe prohibit the religion of the FLDS, or shut your pie hole.Whatever. They moved the age of marriage from 14 to 16 specifically targeting FLDS. How about laws on polygamy? Look up the name Hilderbran HB3006. He freely admits the target.

As far as my XXX XXXX (the thing you called it that is apparently going to be banned), that comment doesn't bother me. Feel free to shut your's (the thing you called it that is apparently going to be banned) now though, OK? It would be one thing if you had something, but you don't. Poser.

Andrew Kirk Deseret News-- "....Both Hilderbran and Darby said they are planning to bring new bills targeting the FLDS residents again in the next legislative session, which begins in January. Darby said he is expecting other legislators will do the same now that the compound is under public scrutiny."

EDIT: Might as well make this a slam dunk throwdown --- While researching Hilderbran, I was astonished to learn that he not only sponsored the aforementioned changes to Texas marriage laws, but during the same session he also attempted to pass legislation amending the Election Code that would have doubled and quadrupled the length-of-residency requirements for eligibilty to vote or run for public office in Texas. This political missle was specifically aimed at the FLDS, whose large presence in Hilderbran's district was perceived by him as being a threat to the political power brokers of Schleicher County. While Hilderbran was successful in his efforts to amend the marriage laws,....---texaslastfrontier

Gritsforbreakfast--- " In 2005, the sect's relocation to his district prompted Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, to push for changes in the marriage law, including increasing the minimum age at which teenagers can marry to 16, if they get parental consent or a court order. Previous law allowed someone as young as 14 to get married with parental consent.
"Had this bill not passed, there would have been quite a few of them that were married and were pregnant for instance or married with kids that were under 16 that they could not have done much about," Hilderbran said. "I've got some pride in it. It's one of those things I knew it was the right thing to do.""

[k-fridge]

Thank you sysint.

[tonys]

comedy.

[sysint]

"shut your xxx xxxx?........"Sorry Mick Jagger, but this is unacceptable on this forum....The wild west ain't no longer.... that was a popular phrase on these there boards... Them fancy east coasters are rolling in now. Holster them guns unless you got a permit.

[Mick Jagger]

Whatever. They moved the age of marriage from 14 to 16 specifically targeting FLDS. How about laws on polygamy? Look up the name Hilderbran HB3006. He freely admits the target.

As far as my XXX XXXX (the thing you called it that is apparently going to be banned), that comment doesn't bother me. Feel free to shut your's (the thing you called it that is apparently going to be banned) now though, OK? It would be one thing if you had something, but you don't. Poser.

Andrew Kirk Deseret News-- "....Both Hilderbran and Darby said they are planning to bring new bills targeting the FLDS residents again in the next legislative session, which begins in January. Darby said he is expecting other legislators will do the same now that the compound is under public scrutiny."

EDIT: Might as well make this a slam dunk throwdown --- While researching Hilderbran, I was astonished to learn that he not only sponsored the aforementioned changes to Texas marriage laws, but during the same session he also attempted to pass legislation amending the Election Code that would have doubled and quadrupled the length-of-residency requirements for eligibilty to vote or run for public office in Texas. This political missle was specifically aimed at the FLDS, whose large presence in Hilderbran's district was perceived by him as being a threat to the political power brokers of Schleicher County. While Hilderbran was successful in his efforts to amend the marriage laws,....---texaslastfrontier

Gritsforbreakfast--- " In 2005, the sect's relocation to his district prompted Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, to push for changes in the marriage law, including increasing the minimum age at which teenagers can marry to 16, if they get parental consent or a court order. Previous law allowed someone as young as 14 to get married with parental consent.
"Had this bill not passed, there would have been quite a few of them that were married and were pregnant for instance or married with kids that were under 16 that they could not have done much about," Hilderbran said. "I've got some pride in it. It's one of those things I knew it was the right thing to do.""

Marriage isn't a religious matter, dude. It's a civil matter. The civil authorities can regulate civil matters. It's religion that is off limits.

[bootlen]

Marriage isn't a religious matter, dude. It's a civil matter. The civil authorities can regulate civil matters. It's religion that is off limits.

Wrong, Mick. God instituted marriage. Man just wrote a few laws regarding it.

[sysint]

Marriage isn't a religious matter, dude. It's a civil matter. The civil authorities can regulate civil matters. It's religion that is off limits. You still have trouble with reality. Re-read the quote of the politicians that spearheaded the legislation. It was done to thwart the progress of a specific religion dude. Actually, if you examine much of the challenges in the Supreme Court about freedoms you will find people trying to legislate against it all the time.

[sline-dawg]

Too some people everything is a religious matter....:o

[Mick Jagger]

Wrong, Mick. God instituted marriage. Man just wrote a few laws regarding it. "Religion" as the word is used in the Constitution means, "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it." God man or may not have instituted marriage. But, it doesn't make any difference, because marriage it's not a duty we owe to our Creator. It's what Jefferson called a "social duty."

Religious duties are owed exclusively and absolutely to God. A man, or a group of men, have no say regarding another man's religious duties, unless the discharge of such duties do injury to others.

Social duties are owed to one's fellow man. Examples of social duties are:


the duty not to murder another

the duty not to steal from another

the duty not to lie about another under oath

the duty not to operate a motor vehicle at a speed which is unreasonable

the duty to take no more than one wife

the duty no to park in a handicapped parking zone

[k-fridge]

Too some people everything is a religious matter....:o
People on the far end of both sides do. The ultra religious, and the militant anti-religious.

[Mick Jagger]

You still have trouble with reality. Re-read the quote of the politicians that spearheaded the legislation. It was done to thwart the progress of a specific religion dude. Actually, if you examine much of the challenges in the Supreme Court about freedoms you will find people trying to legislate against it all the time.

Produce the laws, or proposed laws, that you believe interfere with religion and we'll discuss them. Otherwise, quit bothering me. Changing the age of consent for marriage isn't an interference with religion, because marriage isn't a religious matter. It's a civil matter.

If marriage was a religious matter, the Constitution would prohibit the authorities from regulating it.

[sline-dawg]

People on the far end of both sides do. The ultra religious, and the militant anti-religious.

Hey man... whatever makes you happy in this life....:)


I do get a kick out of you guys hedging the next eternity on this short existence....;) :)

[k-fridge]

Hey man... whatever makes you happy in this life....:)


I do get a kick out of you guys hedging the next eternity on this short existence....;) :)

I wasn't slamming you, just pointing out that it's not only religious people who want to make everything religious. The opponents often do as well.

[k-fridge]

If marriage was a religious matter, the Constitution would prohibit the authorities from regulating it.

Actually, it does. There is nothing about marriage in the US Constitution. It's strictly up to the states.

[Andy Schoen]

the duty not to murder another

the duty not to steal from another

the duty not to lie about another under oath

the duty not to operate a motor vehicle at a speed which is unreasonable

the duty to take no more than one wife

the duty no to park in a handicapped parking zone

Mmmmm.... am I the only one who sees a similarity between "social duties" and the 10 Commandments? :confused:

I wonder where Jefferson's "social duties" were derived. :rolleyes:

[bootlen]

"Religion" as the word is used in the Constitution means, "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it." God man or may not have instituted marriage. But, it doesn't make any difference, because marriage it's not a duty we owe to our Creator. It's what Jefferson called a "social duty."

Religious duties are owed exclusively and absolutely to God. A man, or a group of men, have no say regarding another man's religious duties, unless the discharge of such duties do injury to others.

Social duties are owed to one's fellow man. Examples of social duties are:


the duty not to murder another

the duty not to steal from another

the duty not to lie about another under oath

the duty not to operate a motor vehicle at a speed which is unreasonable

the duty to take no more than one wife

the duty no to park in a handicapped parking zone

Each of those "duties" are reflections of Biblical mandates.

[sysint]

Produce the laws, or proposed laws, that you believe interfere with religion and we'll discuss them. Otherwise, quit bothering me. Changing the age of consent for marriage isn't an interference with religion, because marriage isn't a religious matter. It's a civil matter.

If marriage was a religious matter, the Constitution would prohibit the authorities from regulating it. You do have a comprehension problem. I stated the law and also the direct commentary from the originator admitting targeting a specific religion. It doesn't get more clear cut. The legislator stated he introduced the bill targeting a specific religion. Try to wash it away as a civil matter does nothing for intent.

At any rate, I'd argue a civil union is a civil matter, but marriage didn't originate from a civil source. That would simply be you trying to claim it's a civil matter. I would say that there would be far less controversy should marriage be left between a man and a woman, and any other coupling simply be called a civil union. Or, the state can simply only authorize civil union and not marriage.

[Mick Jagger]

Mmmmm.... am I the only one who sees a similarity between "social duties" and the 10 Commandments? The Ten Commandments are a mixture of duties owed to the Creator and duties owe to other men.

[Mick Jagger]

I wonder where Jefferson's "social duties" were derived.

I suspect they were derived from the "laws of nature." The idea that one's rights, including one's right to religious liberty, were not in opposition to one's social duties was widely held.


He woud have abhorred the suggestion that a Respect for the Rights of Mankind is incompatible with the Social Duties)

--Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 17 March 1, 1781 - August 31, 1781
Respecting Henry Laurens

[Mick Jagger]

You do have a comprehension problem. I stated the law and also the direct commentary from the originator admitting targeting a specific religion. It doesn't get more clear cut. The legislator stated he introduced the bill targeting a specific religion. Try to wash it away as a civil matter does nothing for intent.

At any rate, I'd argue a civil union is a civil matter, but marriage didn't originate from a civil source. That would simply be you trying to claim it's a civil matter. I would say that there would be far less controversy should marriage be left between a man and a woman, and any other coupling simply be called a civil union. Or, the state can simply only authorize civil union and not marriage. Regulating the age at which one can marry is not a regulation of a duty we owe to our Creator.

[Mick Jagger]

Each of those "duties" are reflections of Biblical mandates. Show us where the Bible says anything about a duty related to the speed of motor vehicles.

[bootlen]

Show us where the Bible says anything about a duty related to the speed of motor vehicles.

Don't have my Bible with me but Scripture says we are to obey man's laws of the land as long as they are not in contradiction with God's mandates.

Can you show me how obeying the speed limit is in violation to God's mandates?

[air311]

Don't have my Bible with me but Scripture says we are to obey man's laws of the land as long as they are not in contradiction with God's mandates.

Can you show me how obeying the speed limit is in violation to God's mandates?

Imaginary God, imaginary mandates. Obeying that sounds like a great plan to me. Maybe i'll start obeying the mandates of the voices in my head. Speed limits are real mandates..created by hopefully non-delusional people.

[k-fridge]

Maybe i'll start obeying the mandates of the voices in my head.


Which one? :p

[bootlen]

He hears voices in his head. Now we know who's delusional.

[sysint]

Regulating the age at which one can marry is not a regulation of a duty we owe to our Creator. I see you have no understanding of intent in either law or reality. So you skirt the issue and now attempt to obfuscate your non answer by introducing another statement distancing yourself from the original argument.

[Mick Jagger]

Can you show me how obeying the speed limit is in violation to God's mandates?

Nope.

God left it up to us to make laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles and all other civil/secular/temporal matters. However, he retains absolute and exclusive legislative authority over purely sacred things. That's why the Constitution excluded purely sacred things from the authority of the government.

[air311]

Which one? :p

There's so many, I can't ever distinguish between them. I never get bored though, which is nice.

[Mick Jagger]

Don't have my Bible with me but Scripture says we are to obey man's laws of the land as long as they are not in contradiction with God's mandates. That interpretation leads straight down the road to religious tyranny because it allows men to determine what God's mandates are with respect to religion.

[Mick Jagger]

I see you have no understanding of intent in..law. So why don't you give us the proper understanding of intent in law?

[air311]

Nope.

God left it up to us to make laws regarding the operation of motor vehicles and all other civil/secular/temporal matters. However, he retains absolute and exclusive legislative authority over purely sacred things. That's why the Constitution excluded purely sacred things from the authority of the government.

Yep..God looked down upon us mere mortals and said " I LEAVE IT TO YOU MERE MORTALS TO SET YOUR OWN SPEED LIMIT LAWS, I'LL BE OVER HERE DOING..WELLL..WHATEVER IT IS YOU FOOLS THINK I DO AND LAUGHING MY ASS OFF". That's a quote direct for your God. I saw it written on a bathroom urinal.

[Mick Jagger]

So you skirt the issue and now attempt to obfuscate your non answer by introducing another statement distancing yourself from the original argument.

I'm practiced at the arts of deception
You can tell by my bloodstained hands

[bootlen]

That interpretation leads straight down the road to religious tyranny because it allows men to determine what God's mandates are with respect to religion.

Only if man does not study Scripture for himself and trusts others to do it for him. And it is painfully clear you are clueless as to understanding Scripture.

[Mick Jagger]

...we are to obey man's laws of the land as long as they are not in contradiction with God's mandates. God mandates strict separation of church and state and strict gun control.....

[tonys]

all these references to the 'big-guy';

but, whose God are we talking about?

[Mick Jagger]

“Government officials can’t impose their religious beliefs on employees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Sheriff Clarke’s job is to uphold the law and the Constitution, not undermine it.”
Under the Constitution, government officials can’t even use their civil authority to gently influence the religion of others. The founders apparently understood that only God has the legitimate authority to gently influence our religion. It seems they also understood, as founder Daniel Carrol pointed out during the making of the amendments regarding religion, "the rights of conscience... will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand."

BTW, Carroll also said "he thought [the proposed religion amendment] would tend... towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government..." Why do you suppose "conciliation" was needed?

[k-fridge]

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1871617#post1871617)
“Government officials can’t impose their religious beliefs on employees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director.


At least you finally admit that you're an AU person.

'course I knew that. ;)

[bootlen]

God mandates strict separation of church and state and strict gun control.....

No. He doesn't. More proof you ire ignorant of Scripture.

[bootlen]

all these references to the 'big-guy';

but, whose God are we talking about?

I think Mick is talking about Michael Moore. I'm talking about the One and only true God.

[bootlen]

Mick ol' pal, a fully dressed and stuffed Christmas turkey doesn't hold a candle to the crap you and AU are full of.

[tunnel_rat]

God mandates strict separation of church and state and strict gun control.....


Tell that to the Taliban........:D

Then tell me how that works out for ya............

[Mick Jagger]

At least you finally admit that you're an AU person.

'course I knew that. ;)

AU is too conservative for me.....

[Mick Jagger]

No. He doesn't. More proof you ire ignorant of Scripture.

I was just kidding about strict gun control.

At the time the Constitution was made, many liberal Protestants believed God meant for the civil magistrate to have no authority over things purely sacred. (See article 37 of the creed of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America).

No civil magistrate authority over purely sacred things was Episcopalian code for separation of church and state.

[Mick Jagger]

I think Mick is talking about Michael Moore. I'm talking about the One and only true God. James Madison believe separation of church and state was a Christian principle. (See his Detached Memoranda)

Madison was twice elected President of the United State. That suggests that most Americans in the early 1800's held the same view.

[Mick Jagger]

Mick ol' pal, a fully dressed and stuffed Christmas turkey doesn't hold a candle to the crap you and AU are full of.

Why are you such a fan of civil authority over religion?

[air311]

I think Mick is talking about Michael Moore. I'm talking about the One and only true God.

In other words, your imaginary God.

[Mick Jagger]

Tell that to the Taliban........:D

Then tell me how that works out for ya............ I have my hands full with the Christian Taliban here in the U. S. A.

[Mick Jagger]

Mick ol' pal, a fully dressed and stuffed Christmas turkey doesn't hold a candle to the crap you and AU are full of.

Here's some more AU crap you might not like:



Separation of Church and State is Good for Religion.


The United States is one of the most religious nations on earth. The overwhelming majority of Americans say they believe in God, and many attend worship services regularly. In contrast, in some European nations where religion still gets government support, interest in faith is falling, and many people no longer go to services.

Surveys of residents of Europe find declining belief in religion. In England, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands, fewer than 1 in 10 people attend religious services. Fifty-five percent of people in Sweden say God is not important to them. Yet many of these countries have government-established churches or had them until recently.

Compare those figures to the U.S. equivalents: Here, nearly 50 percent attend religious services regularly. Eighty-three percent say they have prayed within the past week; 95 percent believe in God.

It seems that the failure to separate church and state hurts religion. Why is that? Here’s the answer: Freedom and competition are good for religion. When houses of worship are dependent on government for support, religion loses its vitality. In America, religious groups rely on voluntary contributions. This policy makes them more robust.

Church-state separation also guarantees the right of religious groups to speak out on issues of justice, ethics and morality. In countries where religion receives tax support, clergy usually are wary of criticizing the government. After all, they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them! Because religious groups in America are truly independent, they feel no such constraints. They are free to try to persuade other Americans toward their perspective.

Madison was well aware of this. In his home state of Virginia, Madison noted that severing the ties between religion and government increased interest in religion and made the citizenry more virtuous. In 1819, he wrote, “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”

Alexis de Tocqueville made a similar observation in his well-known book Democracy in America. Tocqueville, who traveled extensively in the United States in the early part of the 19th Century, noted that religion was much stronger in America than in Europe.

After talking with both ministers and church members of different faiths, Tocqueville reported, “[T]hey all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.”

Tocqueville’s view is not surprising. By guaranteeing the free exercise of faith and barring the establishment of religion, the First Amendment protects houses of worship from government interference and places a premium on their independence.

In addition, because church-state separation prevents the government from taking sides in religious disputes, it creates a type of “religious free market” whereby various faiths are free to spread their views and win new converts.

Most American religious leaders appreciate the protections guaranteed by our Constitution. They have no desire to see any religion, including their own, favored by the government. Only a small – but vocal and well-organized – minority questions our heritage of religious liberty and campaigns to see their faith enshrined in law.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=resources&page=NewsArticle&id=9063&security=1441&news_iv_ctrl=2422

[Andy Schoen]

AU takes the extreme position of separation of church and state that the state cannot reference God in any fashion. This is ignorant.

Theism is a religion. Atheism is a religion

The scientific process cannot disprove the existence of God as it relies on causation to prove things.

By attempting to eliminate any reference to God from our Government, AU is effectively requiring our Government to adopt a religion, namely atheism, while promoting the idea of separation of church and state which just about every one in the U.S. agrees with.

Warning: duplicity at work. :rolleyes:

[bootlen]

In other words, your imaginary God.

Ya got it all backwards, air. I didn't imagine God. He imagined me. And you. And all that you see, hear, feel, and taste.

[bootlen]

Why are you such a fan of civil authority over religion?

Who said I am? Don't put words in my mouth.

[tunnel_rat]

I have my hands full with the Christian Taliban here in the U. S. A.

You people kill me....LOL, :D

You are doing a good job with the Christian Taliban, because I've never heard of them....:D


Which Christian sect would that be then, that is cutting heads off people in public arenas? Giving women NO rights? Comitting genocide? Harbouring terrorists? I'd really like to know. Maybe they're my neighbors.......:rolleyes:

Come back with a serious argument and maybe you'll be taken seriously.....;)

[Slatts]

Theism is a religion. Atheism is a religion

Please elucidate Andy? Atheism is a religion?

I suppose you could make a case for evangelical atheism. You know the type I mean, "Ha! you worship a God! You're not clever like me! you should deny all your long held beliefs and be clever to! Cause I'm right and you're stupid!" I've no time for such people.

I think you'd be hard pressed to call the, "I don't really care if you want to worship a deity if it makes you feel better, as long as you don't insist that I worship him, her or it" type of atheism I.... er.... practice:o.