Wasn’t the Constitution written by Patrick Henry and Jesus Christ? What other Founding Fathers were there other than John Calvin?
Anon8says
It’d be more funny if it was less true.
Alverantsays
It saddens me that a school of political thought that harps on and on about personal responsibility would avoid it so aggressively when it’s time for them to face the music.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
The problem with this particular graphic is that it insinuates that the Texas BOE might have actually read the thing…
Evidence clearly shows this not to be the case…
mattheathsays
Question from a foreigner: is ancestor worshiping the Founding Fathers a specifically conservative thing? I only ask because I’ve seen a fair number of discussions on USan blogs (of various orientations) about what the Founders intended the country to be like and what I’ve never seen is
The consensus amongst the Founding Fathers was indeed X. That really has no bearing on whether X is a good idea. The Founders were just men, and they were wrong about X which is in fact a stupid idea.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
is ancestor worshiping the Founding Fathers a specifically conservative thing?
No. Doing so with such ignorance and hypocrisy with regards to the Founding Fathers does seem to be a mainly conservative trait.
The consensus amongst the Founding Fathers was indeed X. That really has no bearing on whether X is a good idea. The Founders were just men, and they were wrong about X which is in fact a stupid idea.
Actually, you have seen this exact thing. They’re called “Amendments”, there are 27 of them, and they include the “Bill of Rights”.
iambillysays
Conservatives greatly respect their vision of what they believe our ‘founding fathers’ stood for. And if the founding father didn’t think that, or write that, or say that, they just make up the quote to support the conservative belief system. Remember, conservatives can change the physical world with their ideas (talking about drilling for oil in ANWR made the price of gasaline drop), so why shouldn’t they be able to change history by believing enough?
Yoritomosays
mattheath: I’m a foreigner too, but such comments can probably be found regarding slavery. I believe since Jefferson Davis’ self-serving memoirs no one really tried to argue that slavery was a good idea because it was promoted by the Founding Fathers. About most other ideas probably there was no consensus, so whatever side of the debate you’re on, you can find a Founding Father supporting your position.
Celtic Evolution: No, they needn’t have read the Constitution for those post-it notes. You could take any text from the Bible to Harry Potter, and some “conservatives” would still promote the very same changes (ok, for Harry Potter you’d have to substitute the “gun rights” note for one that says “Note that witchcraft is evil!”, but that doesn’t imply that they’ve read Harry Potter, either).
mattheathsays
Celtic Evolution: Thanks for responding. I was of the impression that the Bill Of Rights was considered the work of the Founders, having been written by Madison.
Were any of the amendments really fought for by people arguing (openly) “This is exactly what the Founder’s didn’t intend for this country but it’s what we should do anyway” (even when it was true, as with the 13th)?
broboxley OTsays
something wrong, there is no mention of jews
SouthernFriedSkepticsays
There is debate over certain ideas of the founding fathers. But there is also a legal element. The Constitution is a binding document and no law can conflict with the constitution. It is very difficult to amend.
Since the Constitution (like the bible) is not 100% clear in its meaning, it is subject to interpretation. In this area, the intent of the founding fathers becomes very important because the interpretation of their intent has the force of law. The second amendment is an example. It is unclear if the original intended to give all citizens the right to bear arms, or only extend the right for the sole purpose of maintaining a militia.
Conservatives like to claim the FF never intended to separate church and state in the first amendment. If that interpretation were to reach some consensus, or they managed to stack the courts with right wing judges, they could literally remove church/state separation without even changing the Constitution.
broboxley OTsays
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
Were any of the amendments really fought for by people arguing (openly) “This is exactly what the Founder’s didn’t intend for this country but it’s what we should do anyway” (even when it was true, as with the 13th)?
Well, there was this little war over the 13th amendment…
I’m going to be a little simplistic, here, because I know it’s a bit more complicated than what I’m about to put forth, and there are certainly places to go for more detail about the creation of the Constitution and the process by which the Amendments were created, presented and ratified… but the basic principals of the constitution were ideally meant to be timeless, outlining the important tenets of government that a free society should follow, regardless of point in time or advance of knowledge. However they were written by men limited to the knowledge of the time and constrained to a certain degree by certain aspects of their culture. The issue of slavery outlines this problem clearly.
The constitution has been found to be either flawed, or incomplete on a few occasions. In some cases very soon after it was ratified (Bill of Rights was ratified 2 years after the constitution). In each case, it’s a hard fought and often contentious series of arguments to even get a proposed amendment to the states to be ratified. The last amendment ratified was the “Congressional Compensation” amendment that prevents Congress from enacting a law to change their salary until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.
There are still some amendments pending that would seem obvious but still have not yet been ratified, including the Child Labor Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment…
tsgsays
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
somewhereingreecesays
After Conservaepedia’s project to remove the liberal bias from the Bible, nothing surprises me any more
Celtic_Evolutionsays
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
*sigh*… which of course means, effectively, there is separation of church and state.
Why argue the case that there’s no separation of church and state and then give the reasons why there is separation of church and state?
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution should not distract one from understanding that the amendment is written in such a way as to make “separation of church and state” an obvious conclusion, as the Supreme Court has maintained time and time again. If, as Justice David Souter said, “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion” in regards to the Establishment Clause, then one must infer that government must, in practice, keep all religion separate from functions of the state.
mattheathsays
SouthernFriedSkeptic: It was debates about those 2 examples I was mostly thinking about. It strikes me that in a similar situation in most other constitutional democracies the dominant religious group/ gun control advocates would be organising a campaign to (start making it conceivable) to amend the constitution to strike down the Non Establishment Clause/ 2nd Amendment. I get the impression that that would be quite a long way out of what is thought sane over there.
I actually think there’s a lot to be said for the existing constitution enjoying that sort hegemony; maybe it’s part of the reason the American republic has never yet fallen. The difference in how the debate is just kind of interesting.
kittywhumpussays
The Federalist Papers are often cited in court decisions and are used as a source for deciding Constitutional cases, as well. Their influence is broad, and even fewer Americans have read them in their entirety.
The TBE’s edition should be informative.
mattheathsays
The constitution has been found to be either flawed, or incomplete on a few occasions.
I get that. But am I right in thinking “The Founders were deeply wrong even in spirit” about something or that “what we need to do would be something the Founders would oppose if they were alive today and knew what we know” are well outside the Overton Window? Being able to claim you are on the side of the men who founded the republic seems very important in American debates.
resistanceisfutilesays
mattheath,
One would imagine individual founders had specific visions of what they intended the country to be like, but the entire process of composing the Constitution was compromise after compromise, the most notable being over whether power should be centered federally or among the states (which goes on to this day and was a factor in the Civil War). This compromise (actually called “The Great Compromise” or “Connecticut Compromise”) is why we have our odd bicameral legislature with both proportional, in the House, and fixed, in the Senate, representation.
Anyway, the notion that “they,” collectively, had a singular vision is utterly, even laughably, spurious. From the decision to declare independence through to writing the Constitution, the debates were very contentious and heated, and many (states rights, gun control, church and state) continue on to this day. The only thing they probably all seemed to really agree upon was that they hated being abused and oppressed by the British monarchy. Many of the laws are direct reactions to that oppression (trial by peers, religious freedom, etc.).
Any group has a wide range of opinions, the founding fathers were no different. I would, however, argue that all their views should be seen through the lens of historical context (British heritage with monarchical tyranny, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, etc.). For example, it’s hard to conceive of them envisioning citizens owning automatic weapons when the Long Rifle musket was high tech.
tsgsays
@broboxley OT, you should also note that the Constitution doesn’t contain the words “right to a fair trial” but there’s little doubt the idea is there.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
Being able to claim you are on the side of the men who founded the republic seems very important in American debates.
Ahh… I see what you’re saying, I think. You’re asking “does being on the side of the ‘Founding Fathers’ hold more weigh than whether a position is fundamentally ‘right’, even if it opposes the apparent wisdom of the Founding Fathers”?
For example, gun control. Even if one could make the plain argument (and before anyone starts beating me with the butt of their rifle, I’m not necessarily) that guns are inherently dangerous and a detriment to the society, the gun lobby regularly uses the constitutions “right to bear arms” as a trump card for any and all arguments. Now, here is where time and culture certainly come into play. Would the Founders have written and worded the 2nd amendment the same way given the ubiquitous and far more deadly nature of guns today?
Some would say yes, others no… but I see where your argument is coming from. And I think you have a point, that “constitutional consideration” tends to trump basic sensibility in those cases.
ravensays
Hey, they will get around to rewriting the constituion when they can. And when no one is looking.
Fundies keep rewriting their bible when they think no one is looking too. In another century the NT will be the story of jesus’s birth in the south central USA and he and his gang of disciples will terrorize democrats, scientists, and catholics.
The fundie wingnuts think Orwell’s 1984 was an instruction manual, not a dystopia.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery
Lies are Truth
The US is a Christian Nation
The Earth is 6,000 Years Old
ereadorsays
Yes, mattheath, it is very common in American debate to urge such arguments from authority. See tsg @#14: “You need to read some Jefferson”. Although it is true Jefferson held that position (separation), those exact words were not written into the Constitution. Hence, those who want to argue against separation (e.g. America is an xtian nation) can nitpick to their heart’s content. Anyone who wants to argue for it can quote Jefferson. Many people happen to agree with Jefferson’s arguments, but I hope they agree in principle, not because Jefferson is some secular god who speaks only truth.
David Marjanovićsays
Since the Constitution (like the bible) is not 100% clear in its meaning, it is subject to interpretation. In this area, the intent of the founding fathers becomes very important because the interpretation of their intent has the force of law. The second amendment is an example. It is unclear if the original intended to give all citizens the right to bear arms, or only extend the right for the sole purpose of maintaining a militia.
See, that’s exactly what we don’t get.
When it’s not clear what the Constitution says, it must be amended. The fact that it’s not bleedingly obvious what the 2nd Amendment means proves it must be amended.
But the very idea seems to occur to remarkably few Americans. Instead they keep interpreting and interpreting, as if the Constitution were holy scripture that cannot be amended.
tsgsays
See tsg @#14: “You need to read some Jefferson”.
For the record, I offered Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to refute the claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution as it explains what Jefferson meant when he asked Madison to put the First Amendment in. Whether it should be there is a different argument and one should not rely on an appeal to Jefferson to make that point.
ravensays
One of the reasons why Americans revere the constitution is real simple.
We would never be able to enact such a group of laws and principles today.
The founders were radicals when democracy was a way out there radical idea.
Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? The right to own guns? The right of privacy and a fair and open trial?
There are always groups in our society, sometimes very large and powerful, who object to freedom and democracy and would curtail them if they could. As one of the founders said paraphrasing, “we gave you a democracy, if you can keep it.”
As moron Bush said, the constituion is just a goddamn piece of paper. And sometimes that paper is all that stands between democracy and fascism.
mattheathsays
You’re asking “does being on the side of the ‘Founding Fathers’ hold more weigh than whether a position is fundamentally ‘right’, even if it opposes the apparent wisdom of the Founding Fathers”?
Yes. Pretty much that is what I was asking. Thanks.I was also asking (relatedly) if I was right in thinking that being openly hostile to the present constitution and those that wrote it is political suicide. If so I think that’s interesting different to the situation in the countries I know here in Europe as well as in the Commonwealth dominions (where republican ministers are 10 a penny).
resistanceisfutilesays
When it’s not clear what the Constitution says, it must be amended. The fact that it’s not bleedingly obvious what the 2nd Amendment means proves it must be amended
There’s a whole school of thought that some of the vagaries in the Constitution are a good thing, that by allowing for temporal re-interpretation (again, see the gun debate), that you have a document that is far longer lasting than something overly specific.
But the very idea seems to occur to remarkably few Americans. Instead they keep interpreting and interpreting, as if the Constitution were holy scripture that cannot be amended.
I think this is a publicity issue? People are constantly trying to amend the Constitution, it’s just really difficult to accomplish and usually takes years or even decades, so it’s not very newsworthy unless something actually has the potential to be ratified. The very nature of the contentiousness of the 2nd amendment pretty much ensures there won’t be a clarifying amendment since neither side of the argument could get something ratified.
Yeah, in American Politics there’s some serious worship of “What Would the Founding Fathers do?”
I’m not really clear why, because the answers include “Oppress peasants” (See: Non-direct election of Senators, who were supposed to be the more important House of Congress, and the Electoral college for examples. This is why the 2nd Ammendment is worded thus; They *Hated* Mob rule, and specifically wanted people with guns ultimately answerable to someone who would not be a fuckwit demagogue), “Perpetuate Slavery”, and the like. They had some good ideas, but personally I think they’re too lionized and cared about. They’ve been dead for almost as long as the Republic’s been around, their voices haven’t exactly been relevant.
broboxley OTsays
@Celtic_Evolution #16 the framers were very careful to craft the document to be interpretable. If they wanted as Jeffereson did an inseparable wall between government and religion they would have worded it so and the document may not have been ratified. There was deists in those days as well.
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooomsays
Oh my god, they fucking did word the seperation of church and state unambiguously.
What part of “No respecting a religion” is vague to you?
Givesgoodemailsays
I’ve run into this story about James Madison wanting to insert “property” into the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause. (Imagine how different things would have been if it had succeeded.)
Mark Morford had his usual great take on this a week or so ago.
My favorite revisionism going on right now is the LOLCats Bible.
MikeM
blaisepascalsays
Rutee@30:
Actually, I see the non-direct election of Senators as being very much in keeping with the intent of the Great Compromise, and not a snub on the peasantry.
Before the Constitution, the States were essentially independent countries, loosely bound by the Articles of Confederation. All of the powers the Constitution gave to the Federal Government were originally State powers. To recompense the States for this loss of sovereignty, the Constitution gave the States a large say in how the Federal government was run.
The State Legislatures indirectly elect the President (in that the Consititution gives the State Legislatures the right to select members of the Electoral College), they directly select the Senators, who then (theoretically) act in their interest while in Congress.
The President (elected by the State Legislatures) and the Senate (again, elected by the State Legislatures) work together to manage foreign policy (a State perogative), negotiate and ratify treaties (a State perogative), appoint members of the Judiciary, and set up how the President is going to run the Executive branch.
The major change envisioned in the Constitution was not that functions of the Sovereign States would be turned over to the people, but rather they would be exercised collectively and cooperatively by actors selected (perhaps indirectly) by the Sovereign States.
It was the States which started to change that, by first delegating the selection of Presidential Electors to the people, and then the selection of Senators, until a bunch of political scandals involving Senator selection made direct elections of Senators an “issue”, and the Constitution was amended to make it mandatory.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
@Celtic_Evolution #16 the framers were very careful to craft the document to be interpretable.
What?!? You can’t be serious with that… I can think of no other single document or piece of literature outside of religious text that has been more open to interpretation and re-definition the the US Constitution. We have an entire Supreme Court mainly dedicated to its interpretation, which would seem totally unnecessary were the document so “easily interpretable”.
If they wanted as Jeffereson did an inseparable wall between government and religion they would have worded it so and the document may not have been ratified.
Bollocks! As has been pointed out to you already, why the lack of the term “fair trial”? It is entirely reasonable to reword the Establishment Clause as “separation of church and state”, just as Jefferson did, since the only realistic way to uphold the clause is to separate church and state, as you yourself already pointed out.
Constitutional literalists who regularly refuse to have the words of the Constitution rephrased into plain, pragmatic language bug the shit out of me, and generally have an agenda (although in truth I’m not accusing you of that, broboxley).
Oh… and speaking of Jefferson:
There was deists in those days as well.
Yeah. Including Thomas Jefferson.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
That’s the craziest interpretation I’ve read recently.
The establishment clause prohibits there even being a “State” religion
Tell me how you get what you said above from this?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
SteveMsays
re 33:
I’ve run into this story about James Madison wanting to insert “property” into the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause. (Imagine how different things would have been if it had succeeded.)
Has anyone else run across this?
First, I don’t think Madison was involved with writing the Declaration at all, or that he was even in the Continental Congress. Second I’ve always heard that it was Jefferson himself who originally wrote “life, liberty and property” and was forced to change it to “pursuit of happiness” by the Congress.
re 13:
There are still some amendments pending that would seem obvious but still have not yet been ratified, including the Child Labor Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment…
As I understand it, the ERA is not pending, it has expired. There was a time limit on ratification that is long past. I don’t think it has been reintroduced.
negentropyeatersays
There’s a whole school of thought that some of the vagaries in the Constitution are a good thing, that by allowing for temporal re-interpretation (again, see the gun debate), that you have a document that is far longer lasting than something overly specific.
Define “far longer lasting” and why is that a good ting ?
broboxley OTsays
@Celtic_Evolution #36 perhaps I miswrote, when I said the constitution is interpretable I meant as to constitutional fidelity as opposed to originalism
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooomsays
I suppose it is possible that the non direct election of senators and electors was merely to ensure the people would vote to ratify the constitution. Still, it seems to me more a thing to keep the common man’s voice out. Unfortunately, as it has been a few years, I don’t remember which documents they made their feelings on common idiots known in -.-;
Celtic_Evolutionsays
As I understand it, the ERA is not pending, it has expired. There was a time limit on ratification that is long past. I don’t think it has been reintroduced.
Actually, SteveM, the ERA has been reintroduced every year since the original expired in 1982 (or 1979, depending on which court ruling you want to accept). Most recently it was reintroduced in 2009 as House Joint Resolution 61 by Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
Some will claim the reason for it not being ratified is that it is superfluous, as most states have existing statutes that ostensibly cover what the ERA would. But the truth is that the major obstacle to getting it ratified is, of course, fucking despicable Right to Lifers (of course using the “it’s superfluous” defense).
Cause, ya know, making it a constitutional mandate that women have (gasp!) the same rights as men, might allow them equal rights to decide what happens to their own bodies, including federal funding for medical procedures including abortion. And of course we can’t have our second class, subservient walking incubators being allowed that now, can we?
Celtic_Evolutionsays
perhaps I miswrote, when I said the constitution is interpretable I meant as to constitutional fidelity as opposed to originalism
OK… even so, how does that support your claim that there is no separation of church and state?
SteveMsays
re 41;
The “voice of the common man” was indeed important and embodied in the House of Representatives who were directly elected and where all bills for spending and raising money have to originate. It is also why Representatives only serve 2 year terms, to force them to be responsive to the people they represent.
SteveMsays
re 42:
Actually, SteveM, the ERA has been reintroduced every year since the original expired in 1982 (or 1979, depending on which court ruling you want to accept). Most recently it was reintroduced in 2009 as House Joint Resolution 61 by Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
Thank you for the update. But I will jump on a semantic technicality to save face :-) Doesn’t it need to pass a 2/3 vote in Congress before it can be sent to the States to be ratified? (and that’s why it has been reintroduced every year). So technically it’s not yet pending ratification.
Regardless, I was mistaken to say it hasn’t been reintroduced, thank you for the correction.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
But I will jump on a semantic technicality to save face :-) Doesn’t it need to pass a 2/3 vote in Congress before it can be sent to the States to be ratified? (and that’s why it has been reintroduced every year). So technically it’s not yet pending ratification.
And indeed you are correct on that point. I should have originally qualified the ERA properly.
broboxley OTsays
@Celtic_Evolution #43 original intent was to ensure that the state religions of europe did not put a stranglehold on the new republic. Maryland for example was a catholic grant no prods need apply or settle there. Seeing the continuous strife caused by such things the original framers took the government out of the church business by placing a clause that forbade any decree of a religious nature.
That does not separate, it only refuses to endorse. A semantic distinction of interest to a jurist in a case regarding religion and government. It is not a wall of separation but an inability to endorse.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
Seeing the continuous strife caused by such things the original framers took the government out of the church business by placing a clause that forbade any decree of a religious nature.
Which in effect separates church and state!
That does not separate, it only refuses to endorse.
Oh FFS… please give me an example of how these two are effectively different?
A semantic distinction of interest to a jurist in a case regarding religion and government. It is not a wall of separation but an inability to endorse.
Hmmm… if I wanted to create a wall of separation between church and state, I might go about it by making a law the prevents government from endorsing any religion, or endorsing religion over irreligion…
Celtic_Evolutionsays
A semantic distinction of interest to a jurist in a case regarding religion and government. It is not a wall of separation but an inability to endorse.
By the way… please feel free to point out the precedent case where the Supreme Court has agreed with your premise that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
resistanceisfutilesays
Define “far longer lasting” and why is that a good ting ?
Well, I was trying to avoid a value judgment, since at some level I think there isn’t enough evidence in history yet for any kind of “best formula.” But I’ll take a stab at it. Just my opinions:
If you look at the point of a constitution, it’s really about defining the political entity, the rights involved, and powers and duties. Getting bogged down in detailing specificity in something like that 2nd amendment is just crazy. There would be a new amendment every time someone invented a new type of “arm.” That’s not the point of the document or even that amendment. That amendment was to prevent a government holding a monopoly on force over its people. By its nature, the application of that principle is going to change over time, perhaps radically. By contrast, the bicameral setup is quite detailed since the nature of the construct is the whole point.
I believe a national constitution should be something about principle and something accessible, as much as possible, to the whole population. If it became something that was constantly amended and re-clarified, if nothing else it would become a painfully long document, akin to my apartment purchase contract, where you actually have to read the contract, then rider to the rider to the rider and keep track of all the amendments that override previous amendments. While that may be the only way to realistically practice detailed law (an aside, I long for the day when lawyers discover version control), it stinks as the foundation of a government. That would be like kicking things off in a state of constant confusion.
Compare the US Constitution to the Constitution of India: US is twice as old yet the Indian Constitution already has 94 amendments(!). I can’t imagine what civics classes in India are like. I’ll grant you we suck at education in the US, but can you imagine what this thread would be like if the US Constitution we’re that long? That would be like the national version of analysis paralysis.
I just think if you’re having to spend that much time revising your document, your whole approach might be wrong.
tsgsays
@broboxley
No, sorry. The Lemon Test, used by the Supreme Court to evaluate establishment clause cases, states:
1. The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
It is not just forbidding decrees of a religious nature, it is removing religious motivation from any decrees. The state shall keep its hands off religion, and religion shall keep its hands off the state. Separation, period.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
By the way… please feel free to point out the precedent case where the Supreme Court has agreed with your premise that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
1879 Reynolds v. U.S
no wait
1947 Everson v. Board of Education
um no hold on
1947 McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
uh
1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105
no no definitely not that one
1986 Edwards v. Aguillard
Oh shit that follows the three pronged Lemon test from the above case.
um
humm
well……
broboxley OTsays
@Celtic_Evolution #48
Which in effect separates church and state!
that is certainly an effect of sorts
now please point out “separation of church and state” in the following ruling http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/859/610/126324/ you wont find it there or in most rulings because something either meets or does not meet the “establishment clause”
Celtic_Evolutionsays
now please point out “separation of church and state” in the following ruling http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/859/610/126324/ you wont find it there or in most rulings because something either meets or does not meet the “establishment clause”
Why would a case having to do with a private company and Equal Opportunity discrimination have anything to say about “separation of church and state?
I’m thoroughly confused.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
In other words, broboxley, the case you cited is a case about the rights of a company to Freedom of Religious Expression, as covered by the first amendment, but has fuck all whatsoever to do with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in regards to state sponsorship of religion.
The words “separation of church and state” would be woefully irrelevant and out of place in this case.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
sigh
tsgsays
now please point out “separation of church and state” in the following ruling http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/859/610/126324/ you wont find it there or in most rulings because something either meets or does not meet the “establishment clause”
It isn’t an establishment clause case. Townley Engineering claimed the Civil Rights Act violated their Free Exercise rights by not allowing them to discriminate on the basis of religion. The Court found that it didn’t.
tsgsays
The words “separation of church and state” would be woefully irrelevant and out of place in this case.
I’m going to quibble with this: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause together make up the concept of separation of church and state.
It doesn’t change the fact that the words “separation of church and state” not appearing in this, or any other, decision means precisely nil.
Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable
separation, not quite period
tsgsays
Continuing from where you left off:
Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was, in fact, being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a “wall,” is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.
No one is claiming that “separation of church and state” means they can’t interact at all. Churches are expected to abide by the law.
amphioxsays
I’m going to be a little simplistic
“Actually, there were multiple causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both foreign and domestic. . . .”
“Apu, just say slavery.”
“Slavery it is, sir!”
amphioxsays
Being able to claim you are on the side of the men who founded the republic seems very important in American debates
The Founding Fathers are America’s version of the ubiquitous legendary-hero/semi-divine/originator-god-king myth, so yeah.
Which kind of explains the cognitive dissonnance among some with respect to them and their opinions of/positions relative to those of their other great mythological semi-divine god-king, Jebus.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
separation, not quite period
Of course. Churches operate in the country so if you want to start splitting hairs here, yes not total separation because one operates in the boundaries of the other. That’s pretty obvious.
However, if you take the three prongs of the Lemon test and apply it to any interaction then you have your separation. But judging by your comments that’s not what you were suggesting.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
separation, not quite period
sigh.
You are really reaching, now… you’ve totally ignored our criticisms of your last “citation” as being totally irrelevant and are now playing semantic word games with the Lemon v. Kurtzman case.
And, what you mean to say is “separation, not quite total and absolute“. But there is still separation, period.
A reading of the Lemon decision clearly supports, in a general sense, the an interpretation of “separation of church and state”, just not in absolute terms, because that would not possible or pragmatic… as the opinion states “Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts.”.
In other words, there must be, for some purposes, some interaction between church and state, if for no other reason than to ensure compliance.
So fine… remove Jefferson’s word “wall” if you like (indeed, he used the term to illustrate a point, not to have it taken literally), but you are still left with an undeniable separation of church from entanglement with the state.
broboxley OTsays
@tsg #60
far from being a “wall,” is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.
I was bringing up just that point in the thread because some were arguing it is in fact a wall and quoted Jefferson.
tsgsays
I was bringing up just that point in the thread because some were arguing it is in fact a wall and quoted Jefferson.
I brought up Jefferson. “Wall” is his term. It’s a metaphor. It doesn’t mean that government should have no legal jurisdiction over secular aspects of religious institutions. The concept of separation of church and state is a barrier concerning religion only. That’s all it was ever meant to be.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
The concept of separation of church and state is a barrier concerning religion only. That’s all it was ever meant to be.
Hence the nature of the three prongs of the Lemon test.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Broboxley, you may think you had a point, but in my opinion you were just trolling; being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
I was bringing up just that point in the thread because some were arguing it is in fact a wall and quoted Jefferson.
No, no, no… you’re not getting away with that… you started this whole thing with the following in #12:
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state.
The Jefferson quote was given, in it’s entirety, to illustrate to you what the founders intentions were, and that separation of church and state was indeed the intention.
You latched on to the wall comment and ran with it. We’re arguing that the Establishment Clause is, in effect, separation of church and state and that is is entirely reasonable to refer to it as such.
You are arguing the semantics of the term wall instead of focusing on the fact that what you originally said, and what we are actually arguing about, is patently false.
As I said before, Jefferson was using the term “wall of separation” as a descriptive, to visually illustrate a point… not to be taken literally as an unscalable wall that completely separates all interaction between religion and government. No-one, not even Jefferson, was or is implying such a thing.
Now please… just stop it.
broboxley OTsays
@Nerd of Redhead, OM #68 I cannot be responsible for your opinions, initially I was pointing out that there was a prohibition against a state endorsed religion due to historical precedent so no conservative court stacking could change that without an amendment.
After that came a barrage of “separation not prohibition” posts, I was merely defending my point.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
crap… its, not “it’s”…
One of my own biggest pedant pet-peeves… as usual, I blame the Chimp…
Celtic_Evolutionsays
initially I was pointing out that there was a prohibition against a state endorsed religion due to historical precedent so no conservative court stacking could change that without an amendment.
funny… initially I thought you were pointing out this:
there is no separation of church and state.
Now where did I ever get that idea?
tsgsays
initially I was pointing out that there was a prohibition against a state endorsed religion due to historical precedent so no conservative court stacking could change that without an amendment.
Which you prefaced with the statement “there is no separation of church and state.” Your words.
After that came a barrage of “separation not prohibition” posts, I was merely defending my point.
Prompted by your continual redefining of “separation of church and state” to what it does not and was never intended to mean.
MrFiresays
It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions.
Perhaps it is your wording, but I get the impression you think it is possible for a ‘state religion’ to exist, just not possible for it to have preferred treatment over others. If so, you’re wrong.
caleb.beckettsays
Well if we want to be literalists, we could interpret the first amendment as saying that any law “respecting” religion is unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut command for the government to mock and denigrate religion to me. Strict constructualism can go both ways…
broboxley OTsays
@MrFire #74 a state religion is prohibited, cannot exist, cannot be promoted cannot exist due to the establishment clause of the constitution
tsg #73 separation is an effect of the wording of the establishment clause which is a prohibition
cause=prohibition
effect=separation
my words “there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution’ The cause of the establishment clause creates an effect of separation
tsgsays
#76
my words “there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution’ The cause of the establishment clause creates an effect of separation
a) Those were not your words. I suggest you scroll up and see for yourself what you wrote.
b) That has already been addressed several times: that the literal phrase doesn’t appear there doesn’t mean the idea isn’t there.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
my words “there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution’ The cause of the establishment clause creates an effect of separation
Which comment are those your words?
Not this one
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
nor any other one that is in this thread unless I am missing it. You are adding the word “statement” where you did not say that before.
That makes a big difference in the literal attempt to defend your position.
If you are just talking about interpretation, then there is a statement of separation in the Constitution.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
I cannot be responsible for your opinions, initially I was pointing out that there was a prohibition against a state endorsed religion
Strange when here you clearly say that it was about a state religion having priority over non state religions.
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
How can a state religion have or not have priority if it is prohibited?
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together – Madison -(Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
The point you see hammered home many times is that the purpose of the Separation is not only one of stopping a state endorsed Religion at the detriment of all other faiths (or lack there of) but also to protect both the Government and Religion from interference from each other.
All I know is that if Texas secedes from the U.S., then I want Austin and Houston to secede from Texas and re-join the USA. Free City of Austin and Free City of Houston, USA.
We voted the demented Dentist out, but he’s still doing as much damage as he can with the remainder of his term. Bastard.
The rest of you need to refuse to buy Texas-approved Textbooks for the next few years.
My High School Honors History class circa 1988 didn’t use the approved textbooks at all. We read scholarly articles and our teacher gave fantastic lectures; we also read really good historical books and discussed and debated.
MrFiresays
@MrFire #74 a state religion is prohibited, cannot exist, cannot be promoted cannot exist due to the establishment clause of the constitution
I agree, but my (perhaps poorly-worded) point was that you did not originally say this. I’ll refer Rev. BigDumbChimp @79, who worded the objection better:
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions.
How can a state religion have or not have priority if it is prohibited?
broboxley OTsays
mcfire #82
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions.
How can a state religion have or not have priority if it is prohibited?
let me try one more time
Historical dissatisfaction with state run religions both in the 13 colonies and europe caused the founders to ensure that type of church state symbiosis will never happen in America.
With a blanket prohibition as a couple of the cites I have listed makes it very difficult to try borderline secular religious differences in the federal court system but also impossible to stack the court with conservatives to overturn the will of the founders which was SouthernFriedSkeptics concern.
does the general public speak of the separation of church and state? Of course but in legal briefs and rulings “the establishment clause” is how it is usually discussed.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
my words “there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution’ The cause of the establishment clause creates an effect of separation
I seriously have a hard time reading your comments without rolling my eyes after the above one in which you blatantly changed what you originally said after being called out on the meaning of it.
Which comment above did you say the words you claimed you did in comment #76?
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
does the general public speak of the separation of church and state? Of course but in legal briefs and rulings “the establishment clause” is how it is usually discussed.
But that was not what you said in #12. You said
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state.
Then you changed what you were claiming after being called to the carpet for it.
And you adding that one word “statement” completely changes what you were claiming. You now saying that in legal briefs and rulings that “the establishment clause” replaces what the layman uses for “separation of church and state” (something you have not established mind you) is a different claim than the one you made in comment #12.
tsgsays
does the general public speak of the separation of church and state? Of course but in legal briefs and rulings “the establishment clause” is how it is usually discussed.
So, when you said “there is no separation of church and state,” what you meant was “there is a separation of church and state”.
I see now. Thanks for clarifying. I think.
tsgsays
You know, you’d have been better off claiming you meant to type “there is so separation of church and state”. Too late now, though.
Iron Dragonsays
In some cases the deification of the founding fathers is a net result of the American educational system where they are portrayed almost like gods or at least divinely inspired. The thing is that there was debate between them and there were conflicts even in the beginning.
I know that some people ask what the founders would do in a context thing “Why did they choose this, is there a key context this was meant in, is the wording applicable today or would we need judicial interpretation/new amendment to the constitution.” Some look at them as all seeing wise men which leads to problems of its own.
The Constitution has issues between the strict constructionists and those who see it as a living document. There are those who seem to want to use it to limit personal freedom and others to limit government. And ultimately the constitution itself does nothing unless we defend it at the ballot box.
'Tis Himself, OMsays
When someone urges strict construction of the Constitution quite often what they’re really saying is “some judge made a decision I don’t like.”
broboxley OTsays
@’Tis Himself, OM #89 +1
Fatesays
I am finding the continuing exclusion of the middle, even here, to be a source of unending frustration.
What bothers me in particular is the “move gun rights to the top” thing. I honestly don’t understand why an appreciation of physics, chemistry, and mechanical design as well as a need to protect myself against lethal threats from an at-best uncaring and at-worst openly hostile universe automatically aligns me with religious nutbars.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
Fate –
I’m note altogether sure what all your second paragraph has to do with your first…
But…
What bothers me in particular is the “move gun rights to the top” thing.
Who are you quoting here? I can’t find it in this thread.
I honestly don’t understand why an appreciation of physics, chemistry, and mechanical design as well as a need to protect myself against lethal threats from an at-best uncaring and at-worst openly hostile universe automatically aligns me with religious nutbars.
Wow… ok… you’ll have to point out again where the case has been made that you being a gun owner or advocate has caused us to “align you with the religious nutbars”. Again I must’ve missed that in this thread… can you please refer me to the post or posts you are talking about?
But on that subject… you are of the opinion that the “universe” would be a safer place if everyone were armed? Or just you?
I personally hate guns. I won’t own them, or allow them in my home. Period. It is my fervent belief that they always cause more problems than they ever solve, and I think it’s insane the variety, speed and ease with which we can kill each other from a distance without hardly enough time to think about it.
Having said that, I bear no grudge to the hunters and sport-shooters that own a rifle or two, operate and stow them safely, and use them purposefully. But concealed handguns, high powered automatic rifles and other weapons whose express, sole purpose is to kill people. Nope. No fucking use for ’em. And I’m sorry… you can defend your “constitutional right” to own an arsenal large enough to arm a small country, I will still question your character and mentality if you do, until we finally wake up as a country and understand and do something about the following:
“Guns don’t kill people.. people kill people… usually with guns.”
@Celtic_Evolution #93 strange, there is a picture at the top of this thread, did you not look at it?
A lot more people are killed with cars then guns.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
Hmmm… somehow hitting the submit button ate an entire section of my post…
It should read:
“And I’m sorry… you can defend your “constitutional right” to own an arsenal large enough to arm a small country, I will still question your character and mentality if you do, and steer as far the hell away from you as I can. Rabid gun advocates scare the bejeezus out of me. Every year the statistics regarding gun violence make me shake my head, but I’m afraid as long as we keep allowing gun lobbyists to use the constitution as a perverted justification for allowing high-powered handguns to be put in the hands of inner-city thugs, we will continue to see the tens of thousands of gun-related deaths we see every year until we finally wake up as a country…
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
@Celtic_Evolution #93 strange, there is a picture at the top of this thread, did you not look at it?
Oh, is that near the comment where you used the words
there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution
?
A lot more people are killed with cars then guns.
good grief
See if you can maybe figure out why that statement in the context of the discussion is moronic.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
A lot more people are killed with cars then guns.
See… this is why I fucking hate gun advocates. Stupid, ignorant, asshat logic like this.
Chew on a few things regarding that fucking moronic statement, dipshit:
What’s the percentage of deaths in relation to the percentage of car owners to gun owners, clownshoe… NOW it’s a fucking apples-to-apples comparison, and I think your comparison doesn’t support you the way it think it does anymore.
Second, the vital purpose of a car is other than to cause severe injury. Still think it’s a rational comparison?
Third, rarely are cars intentionally developed with the sole purpose of killing more people quicker and more efficiently. And if they were I’d certainly support a law banning their production.
Shall I keep going, or will you stop being a fuckwad now?
broboxley OTsays
celtic evolution and chimp blow me
2008 67% homicides were by firearma
18% by edged weapons
14% unknown weapons
6% hands feet body parts
I’m afraid as long as we keep allowing gun lobbyists to use the constitution as a perverted justification for allowing high-powered handguns to be put in the hands of inner-city thugs
since the chance of you getting shot is fucking minescule and the people doing the shooting above would probably be just as happy using knives clubs and steel toed boots
Something Arbitrarysays
What’s the percentage of deaths in relation to the percentage of car owners to gun owners
I did some Googling on ownership stats:
According to the National Opinion Research Center, in 2001 33.1% of American households had guns. This is thought to be a slight under-estimate since many people don’t like to admit to ownership, but the real answer is probably under 35%.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2001 92% of households had at least one car.
phantomreader42says
Fate @ #91:
What bothers me in particular is the “move gun rights to the top” thing. I honestly don’t understand why an appreciation of physics, chemistry, and mechanical design as well as a need to protect myself against lethal threats from an at-best uncaring and at-worst openly hostile universe automatically aligns me with religious nutbars.
The issue is not that the nutbars care about gun rights. It’s that the nutbars ONLY care about gun rights. They treat the Second Amendment as the Perfect And Infallible Holy Word of Almighty God, but will happily throw away every other. They don’t give a flying fuck about actual freedom, as long as they have their guns. They don’t care if people can be dragged out of their homes and tortured to death without even the pretense of a trial all for merely thinking inconvenient thoughts, as long as they can sit around stroking their pitiful little weapons. It’s not about rights for these asshats, it’s about a gun fetish.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
so 68% of 14,180 is 9643 firearm deaths in 2008
And you are an ignorant, half-witted pile of elephant shit, who doesn’t know how to use statistics, fucking moron.
Homicides do not account for all gun-related deaths, you fucking dimwit. Suicides account for half or more of gun related deaths, and you totally ignored the thousands of accidental deaths (fucking typically).
So learn to cite statistics properly, or STFU.
Celtic_Evolutionsays
I think you are a fearmongering racist cunt
And you can go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty chainsaw… don’t you fucking take my statement and twist it into something I didn’t say just to deflect the fact that you are an ignorant assclown who makes a bigger fool of himself with every post he makes.
I grew up in the inner city… the predominantly white, impoverished and dangerous area of the inner city… so you can go fuck yourself with your inference of racism. Asshole.
broboxley OTsays
Homicides do not account for all gun-related deaths, you fucking dimwit. Suicides account for half or more of gun related deaths, and you totally ignored the thousands of accidental deaths (fucking typically).
so you racist cunt, you are afraid that a suicide is going to shoot you before they kill themselves or you are a religious nutter interefering with the right to die.
If you want to compare accidents a fucking twat texting behind the wheel is more likely to top you than a stray bullet
face it you are a typical gunhating asshat
MrFiresays
broboxley OT @98:
2008 67% homicides were by firearma
18% by edged weapons
14% unknown weapons
6% hands feet body parts
so 68% of 14,180 is 9643 firearm deaths in 2008
As presented, how does this add anything to your argument?
I’m afraid as long as we keep allowing gun lobbyists to use the constitution as a perverted justification for allowing high-powered handguns to be put in the hands of inner-city thugs
since the chance of you getting shot is fucking minescule and the people doing the shooting above would probably be just as happy using knives clubs and steel toed boots
What are you getting at here? I have great trouble following your train of thought.
Bobbersays
Broboxley, are you that bored and starved for intellectual masturbation material? Yes, it’s THAT obvious from your posts that you’re only looking for something to do. Why don’t you build a log cabin out of popsicle sticks or something? I hear they have pretty colors now.
Waltonsays
The issue is not that the nutbars care about gun rights. It’s that the nutbars ONLY care about gun rights.
Well said. With some reservations, I’m an advocate of the right to bear arms. However, it annoys me when right-wing nuts use the rhetoric of “freedom” on issues they care about, but completely abandon civil liberties when it comes to people they don’t like. These people will accuse government of taking away their freedom by enacting gun-control laws or healthcare reform; yet at the same time, they’re perfectly happy to let government imprison and torture “terror suspects” indefinitely without trial, say, or to let the incompetent Texas judicial system execute people on flimsy evidence. In short, they only care about freedom when it actually affects them.
For those of us who actually do care about civil liberties for everyone, across the board, it’s very annoying when authoritarians (whether on the left or right) use the rhetoric of “freedom” conveniently when it suits them, but throw civil liberties out of the window when it becomes inconvenient.
MrFiresays
so you racist cunt, you are afraid that a suicide is going to shoot you before they kill themselves or you are a religious nutter interefering with the right to die.
This is not so much false dichotomy as it is…WTF?
If you want to compare accidents a fucking twat texting behind the wheel is more likely to top you than a stray bullet
The point has been made to you, repeatedly, that this is only true in absolute terms. The relative numbers are what you should be looking at: How many people own a gun, and have shot someone to death, vs. How many people own a car, and have run someone over? And bonus question: For people who own a car and a gun, how many have shot someone to death vs. running them over?
And this doesn’t even go into the respective purposes of cars vs. guns, as has also been explained to you already.
face it you are a typical gunhating asshat
Do you think one can be gunhating and not an asshat?
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
celtic evolution and chimp blow me
2008 67% homicides were by firearma
18% by edged weapons
14% unknown weapons
6% hands feet body parts
All the above having exactly shit all to do with your idiotic statement about cars and handguns.
Oh and I am a gun owner so blow me you moron.
Rev. BigDumbChimpsays
broboxley OT, logic and statistics you are doing them wrong.
And you still haven’t answered about your dishonest lying tactics that were pointed out to you above.
“statement”
You’re the typical dumb ass who comes here spouting off about something and immediately changes the topic or point of contention when your stupidity is pointed out to you.
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooomsays
Just for the record, Celtic, I don’t think it’s fair to count suicidal deaths with guns in statistics used to call for their ban. I’m with you in spirit, but profoundly lazy and otherwise occupied. But on that note, I had to mention my opinion.
savagemikesays
This revisionism is ridiculous. I don’t know where these people get their information from.
I made this silly little image to kind of illustrate what I feel is one of the main problems with conservativism.
Wasn’t the Constitution written by Patrick Henry and Jesus Christ? What other Founding Fathers were there other than John Calvin?
It’d be more funny if it was less true.
It saddens me that a school of political thought that harps on and on about personal responsibility would avoid it so aggressively when it’s time for them to face the music.
The problem with this particular graphic is that it insinuates that the Texas BOE might have actually read the thing…
Evidence clearly shows this not to be the case…
Question from a foreigner: is ancestor worshiping the Founding Fathers a specifically conservative thing? I only ask because I’ve seen a fair number of discussions on USan blogs (of various orientations) about what the Founders intended the country to be like and what I’ve never seen is
No. Doing so with such ignorance and hypocrisy with regards to the Founding Fathers does seem to be a mainly conservative trait.
Actually, you have seen this exact thing. They’re called “Amendments”, there are 27 of them, and they include the “Bill of Rights”.
Conservatives greatly respect their vision of what they believe our ‘founding fathers’ stood for. And if the founding father didn’t think that, or write that, or say that, they just make up the quote to support the conservative belief system. Remember, conservatives can change the physical world with their ideas (talking about drilling for oil in ANWR made the price of gasaline drop), so why shouldn’t they be able to change history by believing enough?
mattheath: I’m a foreigner too, but such comments can probably be found regarding slavery. I believe since Jefferson Davis’ self-serving memoirs no one really tried to argue that slavery was a good idea because it was promoted by the Founding Fathers. About most other ideas probably there was no consensus, so whatever side of the debate you’re on, you can find a Founding Father supporting your position.
Celtic Evolution: No, they needn’t have read the Constitution for those post-it notes. You could take any text from the Bible to Harry Potter, and some “conservatives” would still promote the very same changes (ok, for Harry Potter you’d have to substitute the “gun rights” note for one that says “Note that witchcraft is evil!”, but that doesn’t imply that they’ve read Harry Potter, either).
Celtic Evolution: Thanks for responding. I was of the impression that the Bill Of Rights was considered the work of the Founders, having been written by Madison.
Were any of the amendments really fought for by people arguing (openly) “This is exactly what the Founder’s didn’t intend for this country but it’s what we should do anyway” (even when it was true, as with the 13th)?
something wrong, there is no mention of jews
There is debate over certain ideas of the founding fathers. But there is also a legal element. The Constitution is a binding document and no law can conflict with the constitution. It is very difficult to amend.
Since the Constitution (like the bible) is not 100% clear in its meaning, it is subject to interpretation. In this area, the intent of the founding fathers becomes very important because the interpretation of their intent has the force of law. The second amendment is an example. It is unclear if the original intended to give all citizens the right to bear arms, or only extend the right for the sole purpose of maintaining a militia.
Conservatives like to claim the FF never intended to separate church and state in the first amendment. If that interpretation were to reach some consensus, or they managed to stack the courts with right wing judges, they could literally remove church/state separation without even changing the Constitution.
@SouthernFriedSkeptic #11 there is no separation of church and state. It a prohibition against a “State” religion having priory over non state religions. Now the only way to prevent that is to not allow any one religion to govern state functions which leads to the only practical method of doing so, separation.
Well, there was this little war over the 13th amendment…
I’m going to be a little simplistic, here, because I know it’s a bit more complicated than what I’m about to put forth, and there are certainly places to go for more detail about the creation of the Constitution and the process by which the Amendments were created, presented and ratified… but the basic principals of the constitution were ideally meant to be timeless, outlining the important tenets of government that a free society should follow, regardless of point in time or advance of knowledge. However they were written by men limited to the knowledge of the time and constrained to a certain degree by certain aspects of their culture. The issue of slavery outlines this problem clearly.
The constitution has been found to be either flawed, or incomplete on a few occasions. In some cases very soon after it was ratified (Bill of Rights was ratified 2 years after the constitution). In each case, it’s a hard fought and often contentious series of arguments to even get a proposed amendment to the states to be ratified. The last amendment ratified was the “Congressional Compensation” amendment that prevents Congress from enacting a law to change their salary until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives.
There are still some amendments pending that would seem obvious but still have not yet been ratified, including the Child Labor Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment…
You need to read some Jefferson:
After Conservaepedia’s project to remove the liberal bias from the Bible, nothing surprises me any more
*sigh*… which of course means, effectively, there is separation of church and state.
Why argue the case that there’s no separation of church and state and then give the reasons why there is separation of church and state?
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution should not distract one from understanding that the amendment is written in such a way as to make “separation of church and state” an obvious conclusion, as the Supreme Court has maintained time and time again. If, as Justice David Souter said, “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion” in regards to the Establishment Clause, then one must infer that government must, in practice, keep all religion separate from functions of the state.
SouthernFriedSkeptic: It was debates about those 2 examples I was mostly thinking about. It strikes me that in a similar situation in most other constitutional democracies the dominant religious group/ gun control advocates would be organising a campaign to (start making it conceivable) to amend the constitution to strike down the Non Establishment Clause/ 2nd Amendment. I get the impression that that would be quite a long way out of what is thought sane over there.
I actually think there’s a lot to be said for the existing constitution enjoying that sort hegemony; maybe it’s part of the reason the American republic has never yet fallen. The difference in how the debate is just kind of interesting.
The Federalist Papers are often cited in court decisions and are used as a source for deciding Constitutional cases, as well. Their influence is broad, and even fewer Americans have read them in their entirety.
The TBE’s edition should be informative.
I get that. But am I right in thinking “The Founders were deeply wrong even in spirit” about something or that “what we need to do would be something the Founders would oppose if they were alive today and knew what we know” are well outside the Overton Window? Being able to claim you are on the side of the men who founded the republic seems very important in American debates.
mattheath,
One would imagine individual founders had specific visions of what they intended the country to be like, but the entire process of composing the Constitution was compromise after compromise, the most notable being over whether power should be centered federally or among the states (which goes on to this day and was a factor in the Civil War). This compromise (actually called “The Great Compromise” or “Connecticut Compromise”) is why we have our odd bicameral legislature with both proportional, in the House, and fixed, in the Senate, representation.
Anyway, the notion that “they,” collectively, had a singular vision is utterly, even laughably, spurious. From the decision to declare independence through to writing the Constitution, the debates were very contentious and heated, and many (states rights, gun control, church and state) continue on to this day. The only thing they probably all seemed to really agree upon was that they hated being abused and oppressed by the British monarchy. Many of the laws are direct reactions to that oppression (trial by peers, religious freedom, etc.).
Any group has a wide range of opinions, the founding fathers were no different. I would, however, argue that all their views should be seen through the lens of historical context (British heritage with monarchical tyranny, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, etc.). For example, it’s hard to conceive of them envisioning citizens owning automatic weapons when the Long Rifle musket was high tech.
@broboxley OT, you should also note that the Constitution doesn’t contain the words “right to a fair trial” but there’s little doubt the idea is there.
Ahh… I see what you’re saying, I think. You’re asking “does being on the side of the ‘Founding Fathers’ hold more weigh than whether a position is fundamentally ‘right’, even if it opposes the apparent wisdom of the Founding Fathers”?
For example, gun control. Even if one could make the plain argument (and before anyone starts beating me with the butt of their rifle, I’m not necessarily) that guns are inherently dangerous and a detriment to the society, the gun lobby regularly uses the constitutions “right to bear arms” as a trump card for any and all arguments. Now, here is where time and culture certainly come into play. Would the Founders have written and worded the 2nd amendment the same way given the ubiquitous and far more deadly nature of guns today?
Some would say yes, others no… but I see where your argument is coming from. And I think you have a point, that “constitutional consideration” tends to trump basic sensibility in those cases.
Hey, they will get around to rewriting the constituion when they can. And when no one is looking.
Fundies keep rewriting their bible when they think no one is looking too. In another century the NT will be the story of jesus’s birth in the south central USA and he and his gang of disciples will terrorize democrats, scientists, and catholics.
The fundie wingnuts think Orwell’s 1984 was an instruction manual, not a dystopia.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery
Lies are Truth
The US is a Christian Nation
The Earth is 6,000 Years Old
Yes, mattheath, it is very common in American debate to urge such arguments from authority. See tsg @#14: “You need to read some Jefferson”. Although it is true Jefferson held that position (separation), those exact words were not written into the Constitution. Hence, those who want to argue against separation (e.g. America is an xtian nation) can nitpick to their heart’s content. Anyone who wants to argue for it can quote Jefferson. Many people happen to agree with Jefferson’s arguments, but I hope they agree in principle, not because Jefferson is some secular god who speaks only truth.
See, that’s exactly what we don’t get.
When it’s not clear what the Constitution says, it must be amended. The fact that it’s not bleedingly obvious what the 2nd Amendment means proves it must be amended.
But the very idea seems to occur to remarkably few Americans. Instead they keep interpreting and interpreting, as if the Constitution were holy scripture that cannot be amended.
For the record, I offered Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to refute the claim that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution as it explains what Jefferson meant when he asked Madison to put the First Amendment in. Whether it should be there is a different argument and one should not rely on an appeal to Jefferson to make that point.
One of the reasons why Americans revere the constitution is real simple.
We would never be able to enact such a group of laws and principles today.
The founders were radicals when democracy was a way out there radical idea.
Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? The right to own guns? The right of privacy and a fair and open trial?
There are always groups in our society, sometimes very large and powerful, who object to freedom and democracy and would curtail them if they could. As one of the founders said paraphrasing, “we gave you a democracy, if you can keep it.”
As moron Bush said, the constituion is just a goddamn piece of paper. And sometimes that paper is all that stands between democracy and fascism.
Yes. Pretty much that is what I was asking. Thanks.I was also asking (relatedly) if I was right in thinking that being openly hostile to the present constitution and those that wrote it is political suicide. If so I think that’s interesting different to the situation in the countries I know here in Europe as well as in the Commonwealth dominions (where republican ministers are 10 a penny).
There’s a whole school of thought that some of the vagaries in the Constitution are a good thing, that by allowing for temporal re-interpretation (again, see the gun debate), that you have a document that is far longer lasting than something overly specific.
I think this is a publicity issue? People are constantly trying to amend the Constitution, it’s just really difficult to accomplish and usually takes years or even decades, so it’s not very newsworthy unless something actually has the potential to be ratified. The very nature of the contentiousness of the 2nd amendment pretty much ensures there won’t be a clarifying amendment since neither side of the argument could get something ratified.
More info at wikipedia
Yeah, in American Politics there’s some serious worship of “What Would the Founding Fathers do?”
I’m not really clear why, because the answers include “Oppress peasants” (See: Non-direct election of Senators, who were supposed to be the more important House of Congress, and the Electoral college for examples. This is why the 2nd Ammendment is worded thus; They *Hated* Mob rule, and specifically wanted people with guns ultimately answerable to someone who would not be a fuckwit demagogue), “Perpetuate Slavery”, and the like. They had some good ideas, but personally I think they’re too lionized and cared about. They’ve been dead for almost as long as the Republic’s been around, their voices haven’t exactly been relevant.
@Celtic_Evolution #16 the framers were very careful to craft the document to be interpretable. If they wanted as Jeffereson did an inseparable wall between government and religion they would have worded it so and the document may not have been ratified. There was deists in those days as well.
Oh my god, they fucking did word the seperation of church and state unambiguously.
What part of “No respecting a religion” is vague to you?
I’ve run into this story about James Madison wanting to insert “property” into the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” clause. (Imagine how different things would have been if it had succeeded.)
Has anyone else run across this?
Mark Morford had his usual great take on this a week or so ago.
My favorite revisionism going on right now is the LOLCats Bible.
MikeM
Rutee@30:
Actually, I see the non-direct election of Senators as being very much in keeping with the intent of the Great Compromise, and not a snub on the peasantry.
Before the Constitution, the States were essentially independent countries, loosely bound by the Articles of Confederation. All of the powers the Constitution gave to the Federal Government were originally State powers. To recompense the States for this loss of sovereignty, the Constitution gave the States a large say in how the Federal government was run.
The State Legislatures indirectly elect the President (in that the Consititution gives the State Legislatures the right to select members of the Electoral College), they directly select the Senators, who then (theoretically) act in their interest while in Congress.
The President (elected by the State Legislatures) and the Senate (again, elected by the State Legislatures) work together to manage foreign policy (a State perogative), negotiate and ratify treaties (a State perogative), appoint members of the Judiciary, and set up how the President is going to run the Executive branch.
The major change envisioned in the Constitution was not that functions of the Sovereign States would be turned over to the people, but rather they would be exercised collectively and cooperatively by actors selected (perhaps indirectly) by the Sovereign States.
It was the States which started to change that, by first delegating the selection of Presidential Electors to the people, and then the selection of Senators, until a bunch of political scandals involving Senator selection made direct elections of Senators an “issue”, and the Constitution was amended to make it mandatory.
What?!? You can’t be serious with that… I can think of no other single document or piece of literature outside of religious text that has been more open to interpretation and re-definition the the US Constitution. We have an entire Supreme Court mainly dedicated to its interpretation, which would seem totally unnecessary were the document so “easily interpretable”.
Bollocks! As has been pointed out to you already, why the lack of the term “fair trial”? It is entirely reasonable to reword the Establishment Clause as “separation of church and state”, just as Jefferson did, since the only realistic way to uphold the clause is to separate church and state, as you yourself already pointed out.
Constitutional literalists who regularly refuse to have the words of the Constitution rephrased into plain, pragmatic language bug the shit out of me, and generally have an agenda (although in truth I’m not accusing you of that, broboxley).
Oh… and speaking of Jefferson:
Yeah. Including Thomas Jefferson.
That’s the craziest interpretation I’ve read recently.
The establishment clause prohibits there even being a “State” religion
Tell me how you get what you said above from this?
re 33:
First, I don’t think Madison was involved with writing the Declaration at all, or that he was even in the Continental Congress. Second I’ve always heard that it was Jefferson himself who originally wrote “life, liberty and property” and was forced to change it to “pursuit of happiness” by the Congress.
re 13:
As I understand it, the ERA is not pending, it has expired. There was a time limit on ratification that is long past. I don’t think it has been reintroduced.
Define “far longer lasting” and why is that a good ting ?
@Celtic_Evolution #36 perhaps I miswrote, when I said the constitution is interpretable I meant as to constitutional fidelity as opposed to originalism
I suppose it is possible that the non direct election of senators and electors was merely to ensure the people would vote to ratify the constitution. Still, it seems to me more a thing to keep the common man’s voice out. Unfortunately, as it has been a few years, I don’t remember which documents they made their feelings on common idiots known in -.-;
Actually, SteveM, the ERA has been reintroduced every year since the original expired in 1982 (or 1979, depending on which court ruling you want to accept). Most recently it was reintroduced in 2009 as House Joint Resolution 61 by Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
Some will claim the reason for it not being ratified is that it is superfluous, as most states have existing statutes that ostensibly cover what the ERA would. But the truth is that the major obstacle to getting it ratified is, of course, fucking despicable Right to Lifers (of course using the “it’s superfluous” defense).
Cause, ya know, making it a constitutional mandate that women have (gasp!) the same rights as men, might allow them equal rights to decide what happens to their own bodies, including federal funding for medical procedures including abortion. And of course we can’t have our second class, subservient walking incubators being allowed that now, can we?
OK… even so, how does that support your claim that there is no separation of church and state?
re 41;
The “voice of the common man” was indeed important and embodied in the House of Representatives who were directly elected and where all bills for spending and raising money have to originate. It is also why Representatives only serve 2 year terms, to force them to be responsive to the people they represent.
re 42:
Thank you for the update. But I will jump on a semantic technicality to save face :-) Doesn’t it need to pass a 2/3 vote in Congress before it can be sent to the States to be ratified? (and that’s why it has been reintroduced every year). So technically it’s not yet pending ratification.
Regardless, I was mistaken to say it hasn’t been reintroduced, thank you for the correction.
And indeed you are correct on that point. I should have originally qualified the ERA properly.
@Celtic_Evolution #43 original intent was to ensure that the state religions of europe did not put a stranglehold on the new republic. Maryland for example was a catholic grant no prods need apply or settle there. Seeing the continuous strife caused by such things the original framers took the government out of the church business by placing a clause that forbade any decree of a religious nature.
That does not separate, it only refuses to endorse. A semantic distinction of interest to a jurist in a case regarding religion and government. It is not a wall of separation but an inability to endorse.
Which in effect separates church and state!
Oh FFS… please give me an example of how these two are effectively different?
Hmmm… if I wanted to create a wall of separation between church and state, I might go about it by making a law the prevents government from endorsing any religion, or endorsing religion over irreligion…
By the way… please feel free to point out the precedent case where the Supreme Court has agreed with your premise that there is no separation of church and state in the constitution.
Well, I was trying to avoid a value judgment, since at some level I think there isn’t enough evidence in history yet for any kind of “best formula.” But I’ll take a stab at it. Just my opinions:
If you look at the point of a constitution, it’s really about defining the political entity, the rights involved, and powers and duties. Getting bogged down in detailing specificity in something like that 2nd amendment is just crazy. There would be a new amendment every time someone invented a new type of “arm.” That’s not the point of the document or even that amendment. That amendment was to prevent a government holding a monopoly on force over its people. By its nature, the application of that principle is going to change over time, perhaps radically. By contrast, the bicameral setup is quite detailed since the nature of the construct is the whole point.
I believe a national constitution should be something about principle and something accessible, as much as possible, to the whole population. If it became something that was constantly amended and re-clarified, if nothing else it would become a painfully long document, akin to my apartment purchase contract, where you actually have to read the contract, then rider to the rider to the rider and keep track of all the amendments that override previous amendments. While that may be the only way to realistically practice detailed law (an aside, I long for the day when lawyers discover version control), it stinks as the foundation of a government. That would be like kicking things off in a state of constant confusion.
Compare the US Constitution to the Constitution of India: US is twice as old yet the Indian Constitution already has 94 amendments(!). I can’t imagine what civics classes in India are like. I’ll grant you we suck at education in the US, but can you imagine what this thread would be like if the US Constitution we’re that long? That would be like the national version of analysis paralysis.
I just think if you’re having to spend that much time revising your document, your whole approach might be wrong.
@broboxley
No, sorry. The Lemon Test, used by the Supreme Court to evaluate establishment clause cases, states:
It is not just forbidding decrees of a religious nature, it is removing religious motivation from any decrees. The state shall keep its hands off religion, and religion shall keep its hands off the state. Separation, period.
1879 Reynolds v. U.S
no wait
1947 Everson v. Board of Education
um no hold on
1947 McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71
uh
1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105
no no definitely not that one
1986 Edwards v. Aguillard
Oh shit that follows the three pronged Lemon test from the above case.
um
humm
well……
@Celtic_Evolution #48
that is certainly an effect of sorts
now please point out “separation of church and state” in the following ruling
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/859/610/126324/ you wont find it there or in most rulings because something either meets or does not meet the “establishment clause”
Why would a case having to do with a private company and Equal Opportunity discrimination have anything to say about “separation of church and state?
I’m thoroughly confused.
In other words, broboxley, the case you cited is a case about the rights of a company to Freedom of Religious Expression, as covered by the first amendment, but has fuck all whatsoever to do with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in regards to state sponsorship of religion.
The words “separation of church and state” would be woefully irrelevant and out of place in this case.
sigh
It isn’t an establishment clause case. Townley Engineering claimed the Civil Rights Act violated their Free Exercise rights by not allowing them to discriminate on the basis of religion. The Court found that it didn’t.
I’m going to quibble with this: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause together make up the concept of separation of church and state.
It doesn’t change the fact that the words “separation of church and state” not appearing in this, or any other, decision means precisely nil.
@tsg #51 since you cited the lemon case :-)
http://neuro.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=separation%20of%20church%20and%20state&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0602_ZO.html
separation, not quite period
Continuing from where you left off:
No one is claiming that “separation of church and state” means they can’t interact at all. Churches are expected to abide by the law.
“Actually, there were multiple causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors, both foreign and domestic. . . .”
“Apu, just say slavery.”
“Slavery it is, sir!”
The Founding Fathers are America’s version of the ubiquitous legendary-hero/semi-divine/originator-god-king myth, so yeah.
Which kind of explains the cognitive dissonnance among some with respect to them and their opinions of/positions relative to those of their other great mythological semi-divine god-king, Jebus.
Of course. Churches operate in the country so if you want to start splitting hairs here, yes not total separation because one operates in the boundaries of the other. That’s pretty obvious.
However, if you take the three prongs of the Lemon test and apply it to any interaction then you have your separation. But judging by your comments that’s not what you were suggesting.
sigh.
You are really reaching, now… you’ve totally ignored our criticisms of your last “citation” as being totally irrelevant and are now playing semantic word games with the Lemon v. Kurtzman case.
And, what you mean to say is “separation, not quite total and absolute“. But there is still separation, period.
A reading of the Lemon decision clearly supports, in a general sense, the an interpretation of “separation of church and state”, just not in absolute terms, because that would not possible or pragmatic… as the opinion states “Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts.”.
In other words, there must be, for some purposes, some interaction between church and state, if for no other reason than to ensure compliance.
So fine… remove Jefferson’s word “wall” if you like (indeed, he used the term to illustrate a point, not to have it taken literally), but you are still left with an undeniable separation of church from entanglement with the state.
@tsg #60
I was bringing up just that point in the thread because some were arguing it is in fact a wall and quoted Jefferson.
I brought up Jefferson. “Wall” is his term. It’s a metaphor. It doesn’t mean that government should have no legal jurisdiction over secular aspects of religious institutions. The concept of separation of church and state is a barrier concerning religion only. That’s all it was ever meant to be.
Hence the nature of the three prongs of the Lemon test.
Broboxley, you may think you had a point, but in my opinion you were just trolling; being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.
No, no, no… you’re not getting away with that… you started this whole thing with the following in #12:
The Jefferson quote was given, in it’s entirety, to illustrate to you what the founders intentions were, and that separation of church and state was indeed the intention.
You latched on to the wall comment and ran with it. We’re arguing that the Establishment Clause is, in effect, separation of church and state and that is is entirely reasonable to refer to it as such.
You are arguing the semantics of the term wall instead of focusing on the fact that what you originally said, and what we are actually arguing about, is patently false.
As I said before, Jefferson was using the term “wall of separation” as a descriptive, to visually illustrate a point… not to be taken literally as an unscalable wall that completely separates all interaction between religion and government. No-one, not even Jefferson, was or is implying such a thing.
Now please… just stop it.
@Nerd of Redhead, OM #68 I cannot be responsible for your opinions, initially I was pointing out that there was a prohibition against a state endorsed religion due to historical precedent so no conservative court stacking could change that without an amendment.
After that came a barrage of “separation not prohibition” posts, I was merely defending my point.
crap… its, not “it’s”…
One of my own biggest pedant pet-peeves… as usual, I blame the Chimp…
funny… initially I thought you were pointing out this:
Now where did I ever get that idea?
Which you prefaced with the statement “there is no separation of church and state.” Your words.
Prompted by your continual redefining of “separation of church and state” to what it does not and was never intended to mean.
Perhaps it is your wording, but I get the impression you think it is possible for a ‘state religion’ to exist, just not possible for it to have preferred treatment over others. If so, you’re wrong.
Well if we want to be literalists, we could interpret the first amendment as saying that any law “respecting” religion is unconstitutional. Seems like a clear cut command for the government to mock and denigrate religion to me. Strict constructualism can go both ways…
@MrFire #74 a state religion is prohibited, cannot exist, cannot be promoted cannot exist due to the establishment clause of the constitution
tsg #73 separation is an effect of the wording of the establishment clause which is a prohibition
cause=prohibition
effect=separation
my words “there is no separation of church and state statement in the constitution’ The cause of the establishment clause creates an effect of separation
#76
a) Those were not your words. I suggest you scroll up and see for yourself what you wrote.
b) That has already been addressed several times: that the literal phrase doesn’t appear there doesn’t mean the idea isn’t there.
Which comment are those your words?
Not this one
nor any other one that is in this thread unless I am missing it. You are adding the word “statement” where you did not say that before.
That makes a big difference in the literal attempt to defend your position.
If you are just talking about interpretation, then there is a statement of separation in the Constitution.
Strange when here you clearly say that it was about a state religion having priority over non state religions.
How can a state religion have or not have priority if it is prohibited?
The point you see hammered home many times is that the purpose of the Separation is not only one of stopping a state endorsed Religion at the detriment of all other faiths (or lack there of) but also to protect both the Government and Religion from interference from each other.
All I know is that if Texas secedes from the U.S., then I want Austin and Houston to secede from Texas and re-join the USA. Free City of Austin and Free City of Houston, USA.
We voted the demented Dentist out, but he’s still doing as much damage as he can with the remainder of his term. Bastard.
The rest of you need to refuse to buy Texas-approved Textbooks for the next few years.
My High School Honors History class circa 1988 didn’t use the approved textbooks at all. We read scholarly articles and our teacher gave fantastic lectures; we also read really good historical books and discussed and debated.
I agree, but my (perhaps poorly-worded) point was that you did not originally say this. I’ll refer Rev. BigDumbChimp @79, who worded the objection better:
mcfire #82
let me try one more time
Historical dissatisfaction with state run religions both in the 13 colonies and europe caused the founders to ensure that type of church state symbiosis will never happen in America.
With a blanket prohibition as a couple of the cites I have listed makes it very difficult to try borderline secular religious differences in the federal court system but also impossible to stack the court with conservatives to overturn the will of the founders which was SouthernFriedSkeptics concern.
does the general public speak of the separation of church and state? Of course but in legal briefs and rulings “the establishment clause” is how it is usually discussed.
I seriously have a hard time reading your comments without rolling my eyes after the above one in which you blatantly changed what you originally said after being called out on the meaning of it.
Which comment above did you say the words you claimed you did in comment #76?
But that was not what you said in #12. You said
Then you changed what you were claiming after being called to the carpet for it.
And you adding that one word “statement” completely changes what you were claiming. You now saying that in legal briefs and rulings that “the establishment clause” replaces what the layman uses for “separation of church and state” (something you have not established mind you) is a different claim than the one you made in comment #12.
So, when you said “there is no separation of church and state,” what you meant was “there is a separation of church and state”.
I see now. Thanks for clarifying. I think.
You know, you’d have been better off claiming you meant to type “there is so separation of church and state”. Too late now, though.
In some cases the deification of the founding fathers is a net result of the American educational system where they are portrayed almost like gods or at least divinely inspired. The thing is that there was debate between them and there were conflicts even in the beginning.
I know that some people ask what the founders would do in a context thing “Why did they choose this, is there a key context this was meant in, is the wording applicable today or would we need judicial interpretation/new amendment to the constitution.” Some look at them as all seeing wise men which leads to problems of its own.
The Constitution has issues between the strict constructionists and those who see it as a living document. There are those who seem to want to use it to limit personal freedom and others to limit government. And ultimately the constitution itself does nothing unless we defend it at the ballot box.
When someone urges strict construction of the Constitution quite often what they’re really saying is “some judge made a decision I don’t like.”
@’Tis Himself, OM #89 +1
I am finding the continuing exclusion of the middle, even here, to be a source of unending frustration.
What bothers me in particular is the “move gun rights to the top” thing. I honestly don’t understand why an appreciation of physics, chemistry, and mechanical design as well as a need to protect myself against lethal threats from an at-best uncaring and at-worst openly hostile universe automatically aligns me with religious nutbars.
Fate –
I’m note altogether sure what all your second paragraph has to do with your first…
But…
Who are you quoting here? I can’t find it in this thread.
Wow… ok… you’ll have to point out again where the case has been made that you being a gun owner or advocate has caused us to “align you with the religious nutbars”. Again I must’ve missed that in this thread… can you please refer me to the post or posts you are talking about?
But on that subject… you are of the opinion that the “universe” would be a safer place if everyone were armed? Or just you?
I personally hate guns. I won’t own them, or allow them in my home. Period. It is my fervent belief that they always cause more problems than they ever solve, and I think it’s insane the variety, speed and ease with which we can kill each other from a distance without hardly enough time to think about it.
Having said that, I bear no grudge to the hunters and sport-shooters that own a rifle or two, operate and stow them safely, and use them purposefully. But concealed handguns, high powered automatic rifles and other weapons whose express, sole purpose is to kill people. Nope. No fucking use for ’em. And I’m sorry… you can defend your “constitutional right” to own an arsenal large enough to arm a small country, I will still question your character and mentality if you do, until we finally wake up as a country and understand and do something about the following:
“Guns don’t kill people.. people kill people… usually with guns.”
Just my opinion, FWIW.
Guns don’t kill people, I kill people
@Celtic_Evolution #93 strange, there is a picture at the top of this thread, did you not look at it?
A lot more people are killed with cars then guns.
Hmmm… somehow hitting the submit button ate an entire section of my post…
It should read:
“And I’m sorry… you can defend your “constitutional right” to own an arsenal large enough to arm a small country, I will still question your character and mentality if you do, and steer as far the hell away from you as I can. Rabid gun advocates scare the bejeezus out of me. Every year the statistics regarding gun violence make me shake my head, but I’m afraid as long as we keep allowing gun lobbyists to use the constitution as a perverted justification for allowing high-powered handguns to be put in the hands of inner-city thugs, we will continue to see the tens of thousands of gun-related deaths we see every year until we finally wake up as a country…
Oh, is that near the comment where you used the words
?
good grief
See if you can maybe figure out why that statement in the context of the discussion is moronic.
See… this is why I fucking hate gun advocates. Stupid, ignorant, asshat logic like this.
Chew on a few things regarding that fucking moronic statement, dipshit:
What’s the percentage of deaths in relation to the percentage of car owners to gun owners, clownshoe… NOW it’s a fucking apples-to-apples comparison, and I think your comparison doesn’t support you the way it think it does anymore.
Second, the vital purpose of a car is other than to cause severe injury. Still think it’s a rational comparison?
Third, rarely are cars intentionally developed with the sole purpose of killing more people quicker and more efficiently. And if they were I’d certainly support a law banning their production.
Shall I keep going, or will you stop being a fuckwad now?
celtic evolution and chimp blow me
2008 67% homicides were by firearma
18% by edged weapons
14% unknown weapons
6% hands feet body parts
so 68% of 14,180 is 9643 firearm deaths in 2008
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html
I think you are a fearmongering racist cunt
since the chance of you getting shot is fucking minescule and the people doing the shooting above would probably be just as happy using knives clubs and steel toed boots
I did some Googling on ownership stats:
According to the National Opinion Research Center, in 2001 33.1% of American households had guns. This is thought to be a slight under-estimate since many people don’t like to admit to ownership, but the real answer is probably under 35%.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2001 92% of households had at least one car.
Fate @ #91:
And you are an ignorant, half-witted pile of elephant shit, who doesn’t know how to use statistics, fucking moron.
Homicides do not account for all gun-related deaths, you fucking dimwit. Suicides account for half or more of gun related deaths, and you totally ignored the thousands of accidental deaths (fucking typically).
So learn to cite statistics properly, or STFU.
And you can go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty chainsaw… don’t you fucking take my statement and twist it into something I didn’t say just to deflect the fact that you are an ignorant assclown who makes a bigger fool of himself with every post he makes.
I grew up in the inner city… the predominantly white, impoverished and dangerous area of the inner city… so you can go fuck yourself with your inference of racism. Asshole.
so you racist cunt, you are afraid that a suicide is going to shoot you before they kill themselves or you are a religious nutter interefering with the right to die.
If you want to compare accidents a fucking twat texting behind the wheel is more likely to top you than a stray bullet
face it you are a typical gunhating asshat
broboxley OT @98:
As presented, how does this add anything to your argument?
What are you getting at here? I have great trouble following your train of thought.
Broboxley, are you that bored and starved for intellectual masturbation material? Yes, it’s THAT obvious from your posts that you’re only looking for something to do. Why don’t you build a log cabin out of popsicle sticks or something? I hear they have pretty colors now.
Well said. With some reservations, I’m an advocate of the right to bear arms. However, it annoys me when right-wing nuts use the rhetoric of “freedom” on issues they care about, but completely abandon civil liberties when it comes to people they don’t like. These people will accuse government of taking away their freedom by enacting gun-control laws or healthcare reform; yet at the same time, they’re perfectly happy to let government imprison and torture “terror suspects” indefinitely without trial, say, or to let the incompetent Texas judicial system execute people on flimsy evidence. In short, they only care about freedom when it actually affects them.
For those of us who actually do care about civil liberties for everyone, across the board, it’s very annoying when authoritarians (whether on the left or right) use the rhetoric of “freedom” conveniently when it suits them, but throw civil liberties out of the window when it becomes inconvenient.
This is not so much false dichotomy as it is…WTF?
The point has been made to you, repeatedly, that this is only true in absolute terms. The relative numbers are what you should be looking at: How many people own a gun, and have shot someone to death, vs. How many people own a car, and have run someone over? And bonus question: For people who own a car and a gun, how many have shot someone to death vs. running them over?
And this doesn’t even go into the respective purposes of cars vs. guns, as has also been explained to you already.
Do you think one can be gunhating and not an asshat?
All the above having exactly shit all to do with your idiotic statement about cars and handguns.
Oh and I am a gun owner so blow me you moron.
broboxley OT, logic and statistics you are doing them wrong.
And you still haven’t answered about your dishonest lying tactics that were pointed out to you above.
You’re the typical dumb ass who comes here spouting off about something and immediately changes the topic or point of contention when your stupidity is pointed out to you.
Just for the record, Celtic, I don’t think it’s fair to count suicidal deaths with guns in statistics used to call for their ban. I’m with you in spirit, but profoundly lazy and otherwise occupied. But on that note, I had to mention my opinion.
This revisionism is ridiculous. I don’t know where these people get their information from.
I made this silly little image to kind of illustrate what I feel is one of the main problems with conservativism.