• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is displaying the Declaration of Independence in government buildings and schools unconstitutional?

The deists stories aren't even proven, except for atheists and others who don't want to acknowledge that most of our founders were Christian.

Diests were present within the founding group even though some might have called themselves Christians in name only. Surely you are not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist.
 
Diests were present within the founding group even though some might have called themselves Christians in name only. Surely you are not arguing that Jefferson was not a deist.

You started using the term deists, and you did it for a reason; as most do. They don't want to acknowledge the existence of Christian thought in the founding of our country's politics. Deist was a term used during the Enlightenment, and basically you don't see it any other time. It's still Christian based, unless you want to try to sell us on the idea that Jefferson Bible was based on Islam?
 
You started using the term deists, and you did it for a reason; as most do. They don't want to acknowledge the existence of Christian thought in the founding of our country's politics. Deist was a term used during the Enlightenment, and basically you don't see it any other time. It's still Christian based, unless you want to try to sell us on the idea that Jefferson Bible was based on Islam?

You brought up Christianity in order to destroy the influence of deism in the enlightenment period. Like Dan Barton, some Christians desperately want to link any progress made by mankind to Christianity while treating the horrors of that religion like a forgotten uncle. Christian thought had virtually nothing to do with the DoC or the Constitution but some persist as you seem to do here. Believe whatever you want, I could care less. History is not dependent upon a common understanding by observers 230 years later.
 
You brought up Christianity in order to destroy the influence of deism in the enlightenment period. Like Dan Barton, some Christians desperately want to link any progress made by mankind to Christianity while treating the horrors of that religion like a forgotten uncle. Christian thought had virtually nothing to do with the DoC or the Constitution but some persist as you seem to do here. Believe whatever you want, I could care less. History is not dependent upon a common understanding by observers 230 years later.
Yeah, like your very liberal self.
 
Yeah, like your very liberal self.

Does the world divide itself for you along partisan lines or do you entertain the concept of objective truths independent of the observer? What I have been trying to teach you is reality, you have been trying to defend a story you have been taught. Stories serve purposes but they usually do not serve the truth especially when created by folks with an agenda. Christian apologists have been trying to claim authorship for the ideas that formed the enlightenment and thus our founding documents and even the French Revolution. It works sometimes but not with historians or students of history. I suggest you look up Thomas Paine for more guidance.
 
"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]

No. The document, taken as a whole, is a justification for the separation from Britain, not a religious manifesto. The few references to an abstract idea of a higher power does not violate the Establishment Clause.
 
I know exactly what you mean and mostly agree with you. I guess I am just trying to explain the mental gymnastics Jefferson and many others went through to justify their actions when their words were diametrically opposed. They were complex men to say the least. If you think about it, this is why it is almost impossible to use original intent as the basis for interpreting the law today. If you followed original intent to the letter, you would have to force the government to redefine what terms meant in order to modernize them. For instance, to Jefferson the word "freedom" meant X, to us it might mean "x+y". An originalist would force you to use X and then amend the constitution to add y. Thanks for the conversation, it's nice to talk to someone that knows the history.

A clarification, if I may. An "originalist" does not care about "intent." Originalists really could not care less what Jefferson or anyone from the era "intended."
 
A clarification, if I may. An "originalist" does not care about "intent." Originalists really could not care less what Jefferson or anyone from the era "intended."

I am unsure what you mean by this comment. Perhaps you agree with me that originalism is merely a ruse to impose modern opinions upon the law by using an opinion of what intent meant to men that lived 230 ago. Or perhaps you think that originalism is not concerned with intent which is wrong at least as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others.
 
I am unsure what you mean by this comment. Perhaps you agree with me that originalism is merely a ruse to impose modern opinions upon the law by using an opinion of what intent meant to men that lived 230 ago. Or perhaps you think that originalism is not concerned with intent which is wrong at least as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others.

I do not believe "originalism is merely a ruse." Originalists are not concerned with and neither do they obsess over what someone "intended" or their "intent."

Or perhaps you think that originalism is not concerned with intent which is wrong at least as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others

No, I am very much right! Originalists, such as Scalia, Barnett, Solum, do not care for intent. Original intent is derided by Originalists. Scalia devotes some ink in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," to repudiating original intent and any focus upon intent.

as far it is does not describe the way they sell it to others

I have no idea what you are referencing but Originalists sell Originalism to others as the method of looking for the "reasonable, public meaning" at or near the time of ratification. Originalists are not "selling" intent.
 
I do not believe "originalism is merely a ruse." Originalists are not concerned with and neither do they obsess over what someone "intended" or their "intent."



No, I am very much right! Originalists, such as Scalia, Barnett, Solum, do not care for intent. Original intent is derided by Originalists. Scalia devotes some ink in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law," to repudiating original intent and any focus upon intent.



I have no idea what you are referencing but Originalists sell Originalism to others as the method of looking for the "reasonable, public meaning" at or near the time of ratification. Originalists are not "selling" intent.

I think you are confusing textualists with originalists. Scalia started out as an originalist but realized after being on the bench that it just did not work so he adopted an new way of looking at the law called "textualism". Originalists did concern themselves with original intent. Heller is a great example of that....
 
"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]
I realize that you are just trolling but I'll bite. The Constitution states that "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." This is neither establishment nor prohibiting the free exercise.
 
I think you are confusing textualists with originalists. Scalia started out as an originalist but realized after being on the bench that it just did not work so he adopted an new way of looking at the law called "textualism". Originalists did concern themselves with original intent. Heller is a great example of that....

No. Scalia was an originalist and a textualist. He wrote a book in which he defined both textualism and originalist/originalism. Scalia did not abandon being an originalist or originalism. He was both an advocate for originalism, an originalist, AND textualist. Textualist has a meaning. Originalist/originalism has a meaning. They are not synonymous meanings.

Barnett, Solum, Bork, are originalists and textualists. They aren’t looking for intent or original intent.

And Heller, an opinion written by Scalia, is a defining example of an originalist not concerning themselves with intent. The majority opinion, as written by Scalia, is very much searching for a “reasonable, public meaning” of the 2nd Amendment at or near time of ratification and not giving two cents about intent or original intent. The evidence and methodology used by Scalia in writing the majority opinion is had nothing to do with intent or original intent and everything to do with the reasonable public meaning at or near the time of ratification.

The originalist method in Heller of looking for the reasonable, public meaning. is the same method Scalia used elsewhere, such as his majority opinion Crawford v Washington, his dissent in Lee v Weisman, his concurrence in Citizens United v FEC, his concurrence in Pacific Mutual Life Insurance v Cleopatra Haslip, his dissent in Boumediene v Bush, his dissent in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, his majority opinions of United States v Jones and Florida v Jardines, are his use of original meaning and are not concerned with intent or original intent.

As I told you before, Scalia authored a book condemning intent and original intent.

Original intent enjoyed brief popularity in the easy to middle 80s. Scalia, Barnett, Solum, and other originalists wrote the obituary for original intent. Original intent has a small, and minority number of adherents. Originalists do not concern themselves with intent or original intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
If you want to see what a person believes, look at how they live their life every day. Look at what they do and not at what they say. His life says the words about all men are created equal and have certain rights was nonsense. Jerrferson kept slaves - some 100 of them and denied them their rights that the Creator gave all men.

Why don't you quit this fake historian bull**** about Jefferson not believing in what he wrote. The point of Jefferson's work is the people who do believe in it have worked to make it more true. We get you rail against it as a way to nullify anything in the constitution to your political advantage and then quote it vociferously when its something you believe in deeply. You are a historical hypocrite because you want to use your beliefs in Jefferson to make people less free.

You make me sick because its all so very fake and self serving for you.
 
Why don't you quit this fake historian bull**** about Jefferson not believing in what he wrote. The point of Jefferson's work is the people who do believe in it have worked to make it more true. We get you rail against it as a way to nullify anything in the constitution to your political advantage and then quote it vociferously when its something you believe in deeply. You are a historical hypocrite because you want to use your beliefs in Jefferson to make people less free.

You make me sick because its all so very fake and self serving for you.

I see the personal attack upon me but I fail to see the denial that Jefferson kept 600 people in condition of slavery as a complete denial of their humanity and in the so called equal rights that he claimed ALL MEN have.
 
"[FONT="]We hold [U][B]these truths[/B][/U] to be self-evident, that [B][U]all men are created[/U][/B] equal, that they are endowed [U][B]by their Creator[/B][/U] with certain unalienable Rights..."

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#555555][FONT="] And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The Declaration of independence declares that humans were "created" and states a reliance on "divine Providence." Isn't that a violation of the separation of church and state? [/FONT]

Not unconstitutional to display those words.

But pointless to put them up anywhere.

All the alluded to self evident truths that were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence got tossed onto the dung heap of history somewhere before the Founders wrote the Constitution.
 
Did we really have to ask this question? Which snowflake out there thinks that somehow a display of the Declaration of Independence is all of a sudden unconstitutional?

This level of sophistry is brought to you by the "So how do you get a bachelor of arts in a [political] science?" crowd.
 
I see the personal attack upon me but I fail to see the denial that Jefferson kept 600 people in condition of slavery as a complete denial of their humanity and in the so called equal rights that he claimed ALL MEN have.

I criticize your ****ty posts. His words were an ideal, and one that has been strived for. Because a man is imperfect doesn't mean everything he does is invalidated.

If that were the case, you would be a black hole of invalidation. We all would.
 
I criticize your ****ty posts. His words were an ideal, and one that has been strived for. Because a man is imperfect doesn't mean everything he does is invalidated.

If that were the case, you would be a black hole of invalidation. We all would.

More with your personal petty attacks.

You judge a man by the totality of the way he lives his life. One day in a life does not determine his history.
 
Why would it be? "Creator" does not point to any particular religion. Heck, I can say my parents are my "creators".
 
More with your personal petty attacks.

Hit the triangle or quit crying, play the victim somewhere else, no one cares. You ALWAYS do this whiny ****.

You judge a man by the totality of the way he lives his life. One day in a life does not determine his history.

Imperfection doesn't invalidate the laws and ideals of the nation. You aren't being rational, you are searching for reasons to get your petty, vindictive way.
 
Jefferson did not even believe in some of the stuff he wrote. It was a lot of hype and he knew it.

Yes. There is still a lot of religious language which lingers in our culture. I know atheists who exclaim “Jesus Christ!” when they stub their toe. Wouldn’t take it too seriously.
 
Why don't you quit this fake historian bull**** about Jefferson not believing in what he wrote. The point of Jefferson's work is the people who do believe in it have worked to make it more true. We get you rail against it as a way to nullify anything in the constitution to your political advantage and then quote it vociferously when its something you believe in deeply. You are a historical hypocrite because you want to use your beliefs in Jefferson to make people less free.

No one in this thread could make people less free than Jefferson did. Because he literally enslaved people.

Kudos to the people throughout history who worked to make his words more true. But it's certainly fair game to point out that he's not one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom