bandaidwoman said:I agree with you. in addition, I get really irked when people tell me American law is derived from the Ten Commandments .
Our laws don't specify a single god who must be worshipped, ban graven images, require us to take a day off work every week, mandate that we "honor" our parents, make it illegal for men to "covet" other men's wives or sleep with unmarried women, or make it illegal to lie ( in fact the "right to lie" is protected under the First Amendment).
The only things in common between the Commandments and most state or federal laws are prohibitions on killing and stealing, which seems pretty universal to most religions to me.
mike49 said:There is no doubt that the founders of this country considered this a christian country. And, that seperation of church and state meant something different to them, than it does currently. The establishment clause has evolved.
Would it be ok today if Congress ordered Bibles from a publisher for distribution by the Government? No it would not, but it was certainly done back in the founders generation.
Our constitution has "changed". And the change has been caused by the Supreme Court. Members of the Court have chosen to change meanings based on whatever personal preference they may have at that moment, and that may even change next week. They may feel this way today and tomorrow think of something else. As it stands right now, they decide what rights you have, or what you don't have, all based on what they want. The Constitution in regards to rights guarentees nothing. The only guarentee being, they will tell you what rights you have or don't have. Thats it.
Justice Scalia put it correctly when he stated, "The Supreme Court has liberated itself from the text of the Constitution". It now means whatever they say it means. Based on whatever.
Your property rights have "evolved". The Government can now take your property and give it to Wal-Mart. Thats it. The Supreme Court has spoken.
Whatever the founders thought about anything originally is meaningless. Our "founders" are alive and kicking, all 9 of them.
mike49 said:jallman,
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It's impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, The United States Supreme Court, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)
Thats one point of my previous post.
A religious right wing site... yes exceptionally credible source. Not to mention the source itself is quoting the most open justice to merging of state and religion.mike49 said:Here is an article that where the Scalia quote is explained:
Justice Scalia: "The Court has liberated itself from the Constitution"
According to the speech one of the reasons given were that abortion was not around during the days of the founding fathers, thus certainly they did not intend for such rights to be promised. Well by the same reasoning as given by the site free speech as you have pointed as well would protect books and print, radio and internet or TV were not around back then so of course then according to such logic it should all be regulated. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of the opinion presented by the site.mike49 said:Abortion is not an issue for the Court, or at least it was not prior to Roe v Wade. It was a State issue. If a State allowed Abortion the Court could not shoot that law down and make it illegal. It should not have created this right.
As far as speech goes, why would internet speech or radio or TV, be any different than the speech as intended in the first amendment? They had books back then and that was considered protected speech.
mike49 said:Your post seems to imply that your rights are given to you by the government, when in reality they are not supposed to be. They are prohibitions on government intrusion. We decide what rights we have. At least thats how it was intended. Now of course your rights are determined by the government.
jfuh said:According to the speech one of the reasons given were that abortion was not around during the days of the founding fathers, thus certainly they did not intend for such rights to be promised. Well by the same reasoning as given by the site free speech as you have pointed as well would protect books and print, radio and internet or TV were not around back then so of course then according to such logic it should all be regulated. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of the opinion presented by the site.
You get to determine your rights, I don't get to determine my rights? What the hell? What kind of reasoning is this?
You know what I meant, abortion did not exist as decent or a right. As was the case with homosexuality. Instead it was seen as pure evil.mike49 said:The speech you are talking about does not state that abortion did not exist. It in fact states the opposite.
jfuh said:You know what I meant, abortion did not exist as decent or a right. As was the case with homosexuality. Instead it was seen as pure evil.
I will agree with one portion of the article in that both sides of any argument will use the constitution to interpret into thier own reasoning. However it doesn't change the basic argument of this thread being that the founding fathers never intended for a christian state.
jfuh said:You know what I meant, abortion did not exist as decent or a right. As was the case with homosexuality. Instead it was seen as pure evil.
I will agree with one portion of the article in that both sides of any argument will use the constitution to interpret into thier own reasoning. However it doesn't change the basic argument of this thread being that the founding fathers never intended for a christian state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?