Christmas: It's About Being with God

Nov 2008
62,175
4,783
Washington state
Separation of church and state is not opposite religious freedom. It ensures it, which is why we have it in the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause.
Opposing free exercise does not insure religious freedoms, it enslaves those exercising their first Amendment rights. The amendment wasn’t meant to stop people from free exercise, but to stop government from establishing a state religion. A person can’t act on behalf of government. Congress would need to make a law stating America’s religion. With a divided government like we have, I really doubt that would ever happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,873
42,387
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Opposing free exercise does not insure religious freedoms...
I do not oppose the free exercise of religion, as the Constitution protects it. However, "free exercise" does not mean, and has never meant, the right to just do anything you want no matter who it hurts. What you call "religious freedom" is really a license to hurt people in the name of your religion.
The amendment wasn’t meant to stop people from free exercise, but to stop government from establishing a state religion.
The Establishment Clause does that - and much more. Clearly you have never studied First Amendment law or Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
A person can’t act on behalf of government.
Of course a person can act on behalf of the government. As with the above, you clearly have never studied the law of agency. Your statement is nonsense.
 
Likes: Leo2
Nov 2008
62,175
4,783
Washington state
I do not oppose the free exercise of religion, as the Constitution protects it. However, "free exercise" does not mean, and has never meant, the right to just do anything you want no matter who it hurts. What you call "religious freedom" is really a license to hurt people in the name of your religion.

The Establishment Clause does that - and much more. Clearly you have never studied First Amendment law or Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Of course a person can act on behalf of the government. As with the above, you clearly have never studied the law of agency. Your statement is nonsense.
No one person can establish a state religion as many have claimed. The Congress would have to try to establish a government religion to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. Your view is any person in a government position should be forbidden from free exercise. Don’t see that in the first Amendment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,873
42,387
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
No one person can establish a state religion as many have claimed. The Congress would have to try to establish a government religion to be in violation of the Establishment Clause. Your view is any person in a government position should be forbidden from free exercise. Don’t see that in the first Amendment.
None of this is accurate. You have not studied First Amendment law or its history; you are just spouting ideology, without education.
 
Nov 2008
62,175
4,783
Washington state
None of this is accurate. You have not studied First Amendment law or its history; you are just spouting ideology, without education.
The history of the Establishment clause in its original intent has been spun so far to the left its meaning has been changed.
Concerns of Virginia Baptists Edit
The Establishment Clause addressed the concerns of members of minority faiths who did not want the federal government to establish a state religion for the entire nation. The Baptists in Virginia, for example, had suffered discrimination prior to the disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786. As Virginia prepared to hold its elections to the state ratifying convention in 1788, the Baptists were concerned that the Constitution had no safeguard against the creation of a new national church. In Orange County, Virginia, two federalist candidates, James Madison and James Gordon Jr., were running against two anti-federalists (opponents of the Constitution), Thomas Barbour and Charles Porter. Barbour requested to John Leland, an influential Baptist preacher and fervent lifelong proponent of religious liberty, that he write a letter to Barbour outlining his objections to the proposed Constitution.[4] Leland stated in the letter that, among his other concerns, the Constitution had no Bill of Rights and no safeguards for religious liberty and freedom of the press.[5] A number of historians have concluded on the basis of compelling circumstantial evidence that, just prior to the election in March 1788, Madison met with Leland and gained his support of ratification by addressing these concerns and providing him with the necessary reassurances. In any event, Leland cast his vote for Madison. Leland's support, according to Scarberry, was likely key to the landslide victory of Madison and Gordon.[6][7] Establishment Clause - Wikipedia. Your rulings are irrelevant to its original intent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
73,873
42,387
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
The history of the Establishment clause in its original intent has been spun so far to the left its meaning has been changed.

...

Your rulings are irrelevant to its original intent
Those rulings are the law, and they explore the history and original intent of the Establishment Clause far more than a cherry-picked Wikipedia article. Throw in a reading of the debates in the First Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives, where Madison first introduced his original version of the Bill of Rights) and you would be able to see your position holds no weight and makes no sense.
 
Mar 2015
27,646
13,505
Istanbul NOT Constantinople...
The history of the Establishment clause in its original intent has been spun so far to the left its meaning has been changed.
Concerns of Virginia Baptists Edit
The Establishment Clause addressed the concerns of members of minority faiths who did not want the federal government to establish a state religion for the entire nation. The Baptists in Virginia, for example, had suffered discrimination prior to the disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1786. As Virginia prepared to hold its elections to the state ratifying convention in 1788, the Baptists were concerned that the Constitution had no safeguard against the creation of a new national church. In Orange County, Virginia, two federalist candidates, James Madison and James Gordon Jr., were running against two anti-federalists (opponents of the Constitution), Thomas Barbour and Charles Porter. Barbour requested to John Leland, an influential Baptist preacher and fervent lifelong proponent of religious liberty, that he write a letter to Barbour outlining his objections to the proposed Constitution.[4] Leland stated in the letter that, among his other concerns, the Constitution had no Bill of Rights and no safeguards for religious liberty and freedom of the press.[5] A number of historians have concluded on the basis of compelling circumstantial evidence that, just prior to the election in March 1788, Madison met with Leland and gained his support of ratification by addressing these concerns and providing him with the necessary reassurances. In any event, Leland cast his vote for Madison. Leland's support, according to Scarberry, was likely key to the landslide victory of Madison and Gordon.[6][7] Establishment Clause - Wikipedia. Your rulings are irrelevant to its original intent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hail Satan?
 
Likes: knight

Similar Discussions