Page 1 of 20 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 248
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    In the interest of not derailing the topic of the other thread I will start a new one here. This is daytonafans comment in another post.


    The ACLU has taken up the cause of abortion rights on more than one occasion. Show me the part of the Constitution that gaurantees the right to an abortion. Show me the part of the Constitution that gaurantees the right to privacy. Then please show me the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. These things were given to us by a run away Judiciary branch of government.
    Just because the phrase "separation of church and state" isn't in the constitution, it does not follow that the essence of what that phrase encapsulates is not in the constitution. I could write a poem about a beautiful day and never use the phrase "it's a beautiful day" in the poem. However you could sum up what my poem is about by saying just that. Also it's a bit ironic that the people who usually make this argument about there being no "separation of church and state" in the constitution believe in the "holy trinity'. The phrase "holy trinity" appears no place in the bible. Using their very own reasoning we should reject that such a thing exist! But I know religion has a hard time being consistent with itself and with reality so I'm not surprised by religious folks unwillingness to check their premises for continuity with reality and other held premises.

    You said you like the Constitution Daytona? Then you should know full well who authored the first amendment yes? It was James Madison. So who better to turn to to find out what he meant by the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;., but James Madison of coarse!

    Now what did Madison mean by "establishment of religion"? Does it mean simply not picking any particular sect as a national religion and that's it? Well not according to James Madison in his letter to congress on why he vetoed a bill to give money to churches to help the poor.

    He stated....http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/madison.html

    ....and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
    No law respecting a religious establishment! Not establishing a religion! Do you see that this is a major distinction? They way Madison meant it to read was establishment as a place or an institution.

    he continues.... ( emphasis added by me)

    This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
    So James Madison vetoed a Bill that would have given money to churches to help the poor and he sites the first amendment as the reason for vetoing it! Are you convinced now Daytona? Who is it that is trying to change the way things are supposed to be again?


    Also I encourage you to read all of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance. on what he thinks about religion mixed with government. the memorial and remonstrance was written by Madison explaining why funding the salaries of christian school teachers is wrong.

    http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/remon.shtml

    Here are a few of my favorite quotes from it.
    Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
    Notice here the context of the word "establishment" as used by Madison here. he is referring to already existing churches as establishments!


    Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

    During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.
    What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.
    Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Hey, dayton, let's see what else is not in the constitution:

    Freedom of expression


    Innocent until proven guilty

    Jury of peers

    No taxation without representation

    The right to travel

    The right to vote.


    Hmmm.....I guess in your view these things don't exsist because they are not in the Constitution.
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    34.8n 102.4w
    Posts
    3,243

    The founding fathers

    would (b)itch slap the guys who try to ruin this country today......At least they had the balls to stand up for what they believed....
    Life goes on long after the thrill of living is gone.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    As always Braces, thanks for the classy rebuttal. You are right and I am wrong. Can I buy you a beer?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    Originally posted by daytonafan
    As always Braces, thanks for the classy rebuttal. You are right and I am wrong. Can I buy you a beer?
    I like Corona with a lime slice.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    Braces, I do not believe that clergy should dictate or influence law. I also believe I have the right to believe in God or not. The writings of Madison are brilliant. One thing confuses me however. You point to Madison as a source. That is fine. However, his letter is packed with "God", "duty to Creator" so on and so forth. Doesn't this make him a fundamentalist nut ball in your eyes?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    Originally posted by daytonafan
    Braces, I do not believe that clergy should dictate or influence law. I also believe I have the right to believe in God or not. The writings of Madison are brilliant. One thing confuses me however. You point to Madison as a source. That is fine. However, his letter is packed with "God", "duty to Creator" so on and so forth. Doesn't this make him a fundamentalist nut ball in your eyes?
    No not at all. I think god belief if irrational but that itself does not make someone as , as you say, a "fundamentalist nut ball".

    But thanks for being honest in your previous reply. I should buy you the beer.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    Braces, I hate to beat a dead horse here but I am confused. I believe the framers, i.e. Madison, clearly wanted religious doctrine to have no role in the formation of a Constitution. I think it is quite clear that they wanted to protect the rights of everyone to express or not to express a belief in God. I come on this site and read debates over social issues every day. There is clearly a sect of people who feel it is their duty to enforce laws in the name of Jesus Christ. While I do believe in God, I find this type of judgement to be annoying, if not outright insulting.

    However...


    You directed me to a document that was crawling with references to God and "a creator". While Madison was trying to protect your right to be an Atheist in this country, he was doing it as a deist in the name of an "almighty God". If belief in God is irrational, then why am I to contemplate or consider the thoughts of a deist?

    The same Constitution that you and Geer schooled me on the other evening clearly lays out the process of dividing the government into branches and separates power among them. You maintain that a woman has a right to an abortion under a "privacy clause". Some people are opposed to abortion on a moral basis. They feel it is murder. Did abortion become legal through a Constitutional process? The court ruled that a woman had the right to attain an abortion citing "right to privacy". The Supreme Court clearly dictated law. They did not rule on an existing one. This is the same court that ruled in Dred Scott v. Stanford that African American slaves had no right to bring suit because they were property, not citizens. Should I yield to their "interpretation" of the Constitution on this one?


    -Thomas Jefferson on the Supreme Court: "This member of the Government was at first considered the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is...by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what an open force dare to attempt."

    So, in summary, I still do not see how the Constitution gaurantees the right to an abortion. If you guys want to compare freedom of expression, driving a car etc... to a medical procedure that ends a life, that is your problem.
    Further, how am I to allow you to quote the writings of deist when his beliefs obviously are derived from a faith in God. Seems like you would want to discount what he says, not praise it. However, his thoughts galvanize your agenda, so in this case, he is wise.

    Please, I am not looking for a forum on abortion. I am simply using it as an example within a Constitutional debate. Looking forward to your replies as I truly do respect them and learn from them.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by daytonafan
    I come on this site and read debates over social issues every day. There is clearly a sect of people who feel it is their duty to enforce laws in the name of Jesus Christ.
    While I do believe in God, I find this type of judgement to be annoying, if not outright insulting.
    __________________________________________________ _______
    The people on this site who express their opinions on constitutional law have no such power to enforce laws. Enforcement is given to the Executive branch of government. Any fundamentalist talk show hosts or liberal talk show hosts have the right to push their agenda within limits of law. There are clearly people here that express opinions based on their religious expereiences. What's wrong with that? It is in no way any different than those who express their opinions based on an atheist view. It's not a judgement. It's merely an opinion.
    It is everyone's right and duty to do so and I am not offended nor is it my intent to offend.
    If it's insulting, I certainly don't know why.






  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    1,406
    Chill, opinions do not offend me. I am talking about when opinions turn into something different. For example, if I was to say "Geer, you idiotic boob, youre going to rot in hell anyway so what does it matter." I would be saying that as an insult supposedly in the name of God. If Geer says "Daytona, you have to be a moron to believe in fairy tales" that is an insult in the name of his belief. I have no problem with an opinion. There is a difference between an opinion and a hate filled diatribe. (See most of Tony's posts if you need an example of this.)

    Let me be clear hear, I am a Catholic. However, I see no difference in Irish Catholics murdering innocent people and Islamic whackjobs flying planes into building. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous no matter who is driving the ship. The God I believe in says that it is not up to me to judge, He will do that eventually.

    Hope I havent made a fellow Irish fan mad. Geer's and Brace's beliefs don't isult me, I just don't happen to agree with them.

    P.S. I am pretty sure the enforcement of laws is up to the Juduciary branch. The Executive and Legislative check each other in the making of law.

    [Edited by daytonafan on 05-04-2006 at 08:09 PM]

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    You directed me to a document that was crawling with references to God and "a creator". While Madison was trying to protect your right to be an Atheist in this country, he was doing it as a deist in the name of an "almighty God". If belief in God is irrational, then why am I to contemplate or consider the thoughts of a deist?
    I think socialism is irrational, ok? So should we throw out Einstein's theory of relativity (despite all the fruits it has given us) just because he advocated socialism?

    People are not completely rational or irrational. Some are a mixed bag more so than others. I certainly make a concerted effort to be as rational and consistent philosophically with myself as much as possible. There are no contradictions in reality therefore there should be non in a philosophy to live ones life by.

    Also, It is a non-sequitur to say that so and so is wrong about proposition "A" therefore he cannot be right about proposition "b". Non sequitur is Latin for does not follow. You cannot conclude that I am wrong about something just because I am wrong about some other issue. ( assuming the two issues are not directly related of coarse.)

    The same Constitution that you and Geer schooled me on the other evening clearly lays out the process of dividing the government into branches and separates power among them. You maintain that a woman has a right to an abortion under a "privacy clause". Some people are opposed to abortion on a moral basis. They feel it is murder. Did abortion become legal through a Constitutional process? The court ruled that a woman had the right to attain an abortion citing "right to privacy". The Supreme Court clearly dictated law.
    Ok so according to your standards they dictated law in the civil rights era also. Should they have not ruled for equal treatment of black people instead yielding to the legislative branches and letting black people hope they finally come around?

    Also, I maintain that a woman has a right to an abortion rather it's in the constitution or not. It should be in the constitution. Rights are a moral principle defining and sanctioning an individuals action in a social context. They are the conditions of existence required by mans nature for his proper survival. Rights do not come from god or a constitution. The governments job is the protect the rights of it's citizens. These rights come from nature. The FF's believed god created nature so therefore they came from god. Now of coarse I argue that we need no god for nature but none the less the FF's were right in the sense that rights are derived from nature. They got a few things wrong of coarse. They should have left out that "provide for the social welfare " crap. And black people should have had the same rights as others. But they did pretty good on the rest of it.

    But on the abortion thing. At what point do you believe that the potential human has a right to life? At the point of conception? If so then did you know that 20 - 40 % of all fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus and get flushed out through the period? If humans were designed by god then this makes god the biggest abortion provider in history. Not to mention the ones he killed in the womb in the great flood assuming you believe that story.

    They did not rule on an existing one. This is the same court that ruled in Dred Scott v. Stanford that African American slaves had no right to bring suit because they were property, not citizens. Should I yield to their "interpretation" of the Constitution on this one?

    Reality should be what is yielded to in all circumstances. To try an defend such a ruling by appealing to reality is impossible. However we must take this one issue at a time. Just because the court made a bad ruling non-congruous with reality in that case it does not follow that all the rulings from the SCOTUS were/are non-congruous with reality.

    So, in summary, I still do not see how the Constitution gaurantees the right to an abortion. If you guys want to compare freedom of expression, driving a car etc... to a medical procedure that ends a life, that is your problem.
    Rather it is in the constitution or not is a red herring. Equal rights for black people wasn't in the Constitution yet thanks to numerous court rulings ( activist judges!!) things changed.

    Further, how am I to allow you to quote the writings of deist when his beliefs obviously are derived from a faith in God. Seems like you would want to discount what he says, not praise it. However, his thoughts galvanize your agenda, so in this case, he is wise.
    Well I think I addressed that above already.






  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Originally posted by daytonafan
    I still do not see how the Constitution gaurantees the right to an abortion.
    In these cases I think it is far better to go to the original source than read my interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision.

    This link is to the decision in Roe V. Wade and includes the opinion of the court and the legal reasoning behind the opinion as written by Justice Blackmun.

    It is a long read but well worth the effort. It will also clear up some of the misconceptions promoted by abortion critics, for example that the decision established "abortion on demand."


    http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
    Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.

    Chapman Cohen

  13. #13
    [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by daytonafan

    P.S. I am pretty sure the enforcement of laws is up to the Juduciary branch. The Executive and Legislative check each other in the making of law.



    Nope. The Judicial Branch of government interprets the laws which are made by the Legislative Branch.
    The Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing those laws.

    Not offended at all Daytona. I respect you and I like reading your posts.
    I am a Catholic too, but kind of a recovering Catholic because I do not agree with much of the church doctrine at all. In fact, religiosity in general, offends me.
    It shouldn't offend anyone that we have people making outlandish statements in the name of God or atheism.
    It would be offensive if they decided to bomb abortion clinics and kill in the name of Allah.
    I guess my point is that these debates are not offensive, at least not to me, yet I feel compelled to stand up for my beliefs and I respect everyone here who does the same.
    I have learned more from the people I constantly needle than the ones who basically agree with me.

    Go IRISH


Page 1 of 20 1234567811 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event