Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree72Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 17th, 2017, 11:39 AM   #31
Banned
 
Daws77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: California
Posts: 7,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
What does the Constitution say? The only thing I've read is, the Federal government will not create a national religious denomination. What does your version say?
stop now before you shoot yourself in the other foot.
Daws77 is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 11:53 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
How does government take precedence over personal religious beliefs? Simply put, they don't. As I recall, the GOVERNMENT didn't want to go down that road.
Because we are a government of the people, of which no religious test will be given, and of which no law shall be passed regarding the establishment of any religion. You are free to worship as you choose. And in the name of that same freedom, I am free to not have to put with you in any way, shape, or form regarding the way you worship. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
Thanks from Hollywood and Daws77
skews13 is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 11:54 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 16,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
Now your rambling. If you read Madison's remarks, they uphold religious conviction. That is the issue. Madison's entire history is one of supporting religious conviction. By placing freedom of conscience prior to and superior to all other rights, Madison gave it the strongest political foundation possible.
My point is that Madison's word are pretty much irrelevant, just one man's personal opinions. His opinions did not make it into the Constituion and are not part of our legal code.
Our Bill Of Rights consists of the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, no one Amendment is "superior to all the other rights " from any legal viewpoint, just according to people's personal opinions.
Madison had personal opinions, you do and so do I. *shrug*
Thanks from skews13 and Daws77

Last edited by Hollywood; March 17th, 2017 at 12:02 PM. Reason: typo
Hollywood is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:33 PM   #34
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Actually it is just the opposite. One of the reasons laws against same sex marriage were found unconstitutional is that laws were, for the most part, based on religious objection to same sex relationships. Madison (and the other Founders) stood against the idea of the state imposing religious views on people.
Davis was not acting as an individual when she refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, she was acting as an agent of the state. Outside of her job she had every right to attend anti gay marriage events to her hearts content. That is what Madison and others were protecting. The right of an individual to practice their religion and express their views without fear of government reprisal. The government, however, is not a separate entity. It has no volition, no ability to act on its own accord. So when we speak of restrictions on government we are not putting restrictions on a thing, we are putting restrictions on the individuals that make up the government. The government cannot violate your right to an unlawful search but the restriction is placed on agents of the government. Policemen, Federal Agents, INDIVIDUALS (as representatives of the government) cannot just search your home because they feel like it.

When the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning same sex marriage were unconstitutional they weren't telling some beast called "the government" that it had to issue marriage licenses. It was telling INDIVIDUALS representing the government (which is what Kim Davis was) that THEY couldn't withhold marriage licenses from same sex couples. These individuals are not allowed to replace government rules with their own interpretation of whatever beliefs they hold.
The reasons for the statesí same-sex marriage laws being ruled unconstitutional was not based on religious objections. The ruling was primarily based off of substantive due process, which did not exist until 1905, so that was judicial activism. The only mention of freedom of religion was in the dissents. The ruling was based off of the incorporation doctrine, which not court has ever produces any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights

Madison did not stand against the idea of the state imposing religious views on people. Madison did not want one Protestant religion to take precedence over another, and specifically, it was the mistreatment of Baptists in Virginia. Madisonís views were limited to the state of Virginia, and not any other state, or the federal government meddling in any stateís religious laws.

There is not delineation between an induvial and an employee of the state regarding rights of conscience. Madison was not protecting anything regarding another state other than Virginia. What Madison was protecting was the statesí rights to make that determination themselves and that there was not federal government or federal court jurisdiction over statesí religious matters.

Restrictions are not placed on individuals, but the government and their policies.

Kim Davisí actions are protected by the Kentucky Constitutionís Bill of Rights, Section 5 regarding rights of conscience. This state right is what Madison and the other Founders were protecting with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court, or any federal court, being involved is the opposite of what Madison and the other Founders stood for.
Thanks from caconservative
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:36 PM   #35
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
Religious Freedom means that the government cannot reward, punish or otherwise interfere with an individual based on their religious belief (or lack of belief).

As an atheist I fully support religious freedom as well.

Religious freedom is why Madison opposed congressional and military chaplains.
The free exercise clause was limited the meaning of the word "respecting" in 1791, which prohibits any law or prevents any federal court from having jurisdiction over any states' religious laws.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:37 PM   #36
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
The criminal laws of the United States such as murder, manslaughter, rape, etc. are based directly on the Bible.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:39 PM   #37
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
There's no such thing as a conservative think tank.

That's an oxymoron.

The heritage foundation is a loosely nit organization of far right lunatic millionaires, that spew their far right bullshit as if it has any relevance or standing.

My 6 year old grandson reciting Mother Goose in a classroom with other 6 year olds, has more relevance than anything that comes out of the rolling joke that is the heritage foundation.
Why don't you produce the mission statement of the Heritage Foundation and the founding principles of this country and show the difference between the two.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:40 PM   #38
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept and not in the recorded history of this country. Atheists do not have standing regarding the First Amendment's religious clauses.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:43 PM   #39
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Because we are a government of the people, of which no religious test will be given, and of which no law shall be passed regarding the establishment of any religion. You are free to worship as you choose. And in the name of that same freedom, I am free to not have to put with you in any way, shape, or form regarding the way you worship. Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
We are not a government of people. We are a government of a compact between states. Article VI's no religious tests was created to protect the Protestant religion. There is no constitutional concept of freedom from religion.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 17th, 2017, 02:45 PM   #40
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,340
What level of historical ignorance does it take to believe that Madison's opinions are personal opinions and that his words are irrelevant and never made it into the Constitution.
Jimmyb is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
church, madison, state



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Church and State? and what they want US to believe! intangible child Americas 0 January 22nd, 2016 11:26 AM
Church and State ? azchurchmouse Americas 222 December 26th, 2013 08:11 AM
Seperation of Church and State Nwolfe35 Political Talk 26 March 11th, 2013 06:46 PM
The State Ruling The Church Tony Perkins Christianity 98 February 2nd, 2012 10:00 PM
Church, State, Constitution hillhopper Opinion Polls 42 July 26th, 2009 04:01 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.