aquapub said:
)
I really didn't expect anyone to challenge this. This is the EASIEST to defend point that I have made. Our founding fathers were all VERY DEEPLY religious people. All our criminal laws are based on classic Judeo-Christian codes. God was written into every part of our federal government. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence asserts that God gave us our rights. Not Christian? In what possible sense could you say that this is not a Christian nation?
I challenge you to show how our criminal codes are religously based. What a nonsensical claim. Our legal code is based upon English Common Law, which itself was a descendant of Roman Law, which itself was a outgrowth of Greek Law which goes all the way back to the first codified laws we know of, the Code of Hammurabi.
How can I say we are not a christian nation? Well for one it is the law of the land. The Treaty of Tripoli, article 11 to be specific, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." SIGNED BY PRESIDENT JOHN ADAMS As you should know Treaty Law is second only to the Constitution. Then there is the fact that the Constitution is a wholelly secular document.
A FEW FOUNDERS QUOTES FOR YOU:
Thomas Jefferson: They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.
James Madison: A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
John Adams "The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity"
There is in the clergy of all Christian denominations a time-serving, cringing, subservient morality, as wide from the spirit of the gospel as it is from the intrepid assertion and vindication of truth.-- John Quincy Adams
James Madison: Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together
Benjamin Franklin....I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies
aquapub said:
)
aquapub:
The 1st Amendment is a PROTECTION of religious expression, not an attack on it. Repealing the 1st Amendment would be the only way to legally suppress religious speech as you are advocating; you have it exactly backwards.
The 1st bans any government action that respects establishment, it is that simple.
aquapub said:
)
The will of the people is irrelevant because we are not an "unlimited democracy?" Dead wrong. The founding fathers AND the people are FOR God not being removed from everything. By our system, this means nothing should change. And it is not "imposing" anything on anyone for the federal government to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian roots of all it's laws. As long as the federal government is not establishing a federal religion to which the states are accountable, the 1st Amendment is not being violated.
Explain my previously posted founders quotes please if you think that. LOL Explain away the law. I invite you again to prove your silly claim our laws are based on religion. The first bans far more than a simple state religion, it bans anything that even respects establishing one.
aquapub said:
)
:lol: You've got to be kidding! So you think the use of the word "respecting" DOESN'T mean "regarding?" So, only laws that "disrespect" the establishment of religion are ok? That's hilarious....completely wrong, but hilarious :lol:
This gibberish cannot be decyphered, care to try again?
aquapub said:
)
Reeeeeeealy. I carry around a copy of the Constitution in my back pocket
Well for goodness sake take it out of your damn pocket and read the thing!
aquapub said:
)
particularly for occasions when I run into people like you. NOTHING.....let me say it again.....NOTHING in the Constitution confers upon the federal courts the final authority to decide how other entities of government may acknowledge God.
Can you find any major law school that agrees with you? Can you find any minor ones? Do you have tinfoil in your hat? What do you think the Supreme Court was supposed to do? Do you beleive it was created simply to do nothing?
aquapub said:
)
There are numerous ways that the Constitution backs up my claim that the Supreme Court has NO authority to be banning the pledge of allegiance, inventing a right not to be offended by expressions of faith, or that they should be the determining factor in ANY of this.
The law that added, "Under God," to the pledge was passed solely to make people acknowledge god, as such it respects establishment, as such it should be banned by the courts.
aquapub said:
)
Article III Section I of the Constitution creates the Supreme Court. In that section, it gives CONGRESS sole discretion over the federal courts.
It gives the congress the right to set up and regulate lesser courts; a different thing than you claim.
aquapub said:
)
The Constitution vests sole legislative powers to the CONGRESS. That means the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to illegalize acknowledgements of God, levy taxes, rewrite state election laws, or half the other things it has done.
Show me a single case where the Supreme Court has levied a tax please.
aquapub said:
)
Article V gives us a way to amend the Constitution. The courts are not involved. This means the Constitutional rights they keep inventing are invalid: the "right" to taxpayer-funded porn, the "right" to an abortion, the "right" to taxpayer-funded welfare for illegal immigrants, etc.
That presumes that any right it protects cannot is not covered under the Constitution already. With each of your examples it was.
aquapub said:
)
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81 that he expected Congress to use its discretion to make appropriate "exceptions and regulations" to keep the federal judiciary the weakest and "least dangerous" of the three branches.
Federalist papers have no force of law, sorry.
aquapub said:
)
The way separation of powers was supposed to work was that if a branch disagreed with an action of another branch, then they would not honor it or uphold it WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION. What has transpired is the Supreme Court overruling the other two branches, blatantly usurping its authority and illegally creating a Constitutional crisis.
Silly. So you think the Constitution was set up to create three seperate and fueding systems of government and law? Nonsenseical. Asinine.
aquapub said:
)
The PEOPLE have the power via their elected and accountable representatives. We were not supposed to be a judicial oligarchy.
The people cannot vote to supress the rights of other people. So we have courts.
aquapub said:
)
In short, maybe YOU need to read the Constitution.
I know it well. I read mine, not keep it in a pocket.
aquapub said:
)
letting a judge display the ten commandments-the basis of our laws (which you somehow think are secular)-is not forcing you to accept that religion. It is honoring our Judeo-Christian founding, whether anti-Christian bigots are bothered by it or not.
I challenge you to support your claim our laws are based on the 10 commandments. In fact a goodly number of those commandments are purely religous commands!
aquapub said:
)
And this is all irrelevant anyway, because, again, the only thing the Constitution says about church and state is that the CONGRESS cannot PASS ANY LAWS respecting the establishment of religion. None of the cases involving acknowledgemen ts of God are a result of any law passed by Congress, so, again, NONE of it is unconstitutional.
It was laws passed by congress and signed by presidents that changed the Pledge of Allegiance to include, "Under God," and added, "In God We Trust," to our currency.
aquapub said:
)
We are not talking about merely "not promoting" Christianity. We are talking about illegally banning any mention of it just to appease easily offended bigots.
We are talking about making the government secular as it is supposed to be. It should take no stand for or against any religious system.