The relationship of religion to the U. S. Government

[Flash The Cash]

The topic of this thread is:

What was the will of the American people regarding the relationship of religion to the U. S. Government, at the time they adopted the U. S. Constitution?

[WhiteRaven]

I do not really understand what you mean, but the founding fathers wanted everyone to follow whatever religion they felt like following, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers followed a deistic religion. I also believe being forced to follow a certain religion was one of the many reasons they left england.

Of course the puritans more or less killed religious freedom.

[Loseirdo]

I do not really understand what you mean, but the founding fathers wanted everyone to follow whatever religion they felt like following, I'm pretty sure the founding fathers followed a deistic religion. I also believe being forced to follow a certain religion was one of the many reasons they left england.

Of course the puritans more or less killed religious freedom.

WR, you've got it backward. The puritans were here first. They fled because of religious persecution, but religion and government remained inextricably linked until the founding fathers drew up the Declaration of Independence. Some of them were Desists, yes, but not all of them. If you read the Declaration carefully, you'll catch several religious references, such as, "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", et cetera. Thomas Jefferson certainly believed in God, and that fact is quite obvious from the documents he drafted (not just the Declaration of Independence, but all of his writings). Since these same founding fathers had their hands in the creation of the Constitution, I don't see any reason why it should be different. They believed in keeping civil matters separate from religious matters, but that doesn't mean they weren't religious people.

[something]

If you read the Declaration carefully, you'll catch several religious references, such as, "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", .

That if anything seems to point to a secularistic belief.

[Loseirdo]

That if anything seems to point to a secularistic belief.

Using the word "Creator", with a capital C, indicates a secular belief? I'm not entirely sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

We know Jefferson believed in God from his writings. That is an indisputable fact.

[something]

Using the word "Creator", with a capital C, indicates a secular belief? I'm not entirely sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

We know Jefferson believed in God from his writings. That is an indisputable fact.

They all believed in God. From my understanding of the history Thomas Paine were the only one that ever possibly were a somewhat of an atheist.

If they were writing a religious refference wouldn't it make more sense if they used the word "The Lord" or something along thoose lines, instead of "Creator".

[Loseirdo]

They all believed in God. From my understanding of the history Thomas Paine were the only one that ever possibly were a somewhat of an atheist.

If they were writing a religious refference wouldn't it make more sense if they used the word "The Lord" or something along thoose lines, instead of "Creator".

It wasn't an overt reference, but it's the kind of thing that would piss off Dawkins, so I don't consider it the least bit secular.

[Flash The Cash]

They believed in keeping civil matters separate from religious matters.

How did they do that? What exactly and precisely were "religious matters", according to the founders of our Republic?

[Flash The Cash]

That if anything seems to point to a secularistic belief.

Huh?????????????

[Flash The Cash]

They all believed in God.

What does that have to do with the will of the American people regarding the relationship of religion to the U. S. Government, at the time they adopted the U. S. Constitution?

[Flash The Cash]

It wasn't an overt reference, but it's the kind of thing that would piss off Dawkins, so I don't consider it the least bit secular.

What does the use of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 have to do with the wishes of the American people regarding the relationship of religion to the U. S. Government, at the time they adopted the U. S. Constitution? Are we supposed to gather the meaning of the words of the Constitution from the use, or non use, of certain words over a decade earlier in the Declaration? If so, why?

[hitekredneck]

The topic of this thread is:

What was the will of the American people regarding the relationship of religion to the U. S. Government, at the time they adopted the U. S. Constitution?

if i understand the question properly, i believe that the people wished freedom to practice as they saw fit...too much of early christianity was owned by the catholic church...and after the horrors of the inquisition, they were tired of being afraid of god...so, freedom to choose the manner of worship as well as the freedom not to worship at all, that's what they willed

[Loseirdo]

if i understand the question properly, i believe that the people wished freedom to practice as they saw fit...too much of early christianity was owned by the catholic church...and after the horrors of the inquisition, they were tired of being afraid of god...so, freedom to choose the manner of worship as well as the freedom not to worship at all, that's what they willed

This is partially true. In actuality, the dominant religion in early America was Protestantism (Puritans). Judaism and Catholicism were highly frowned upon and even prohibited for some time. The founding fathers realized that this could not continue, and that all people should be allowed to worship as they saw fit. Since Protestants ran everything in colonial America, they decided the best course of action would be to completely separate secular authority from religious authority; that is, the leader of no particular church could pass laws or have civil authority merely on the basis of religion. The Inquisition and people who "were tired of being afraid of god", as you put it, are what sparked the Protestant Reformation some time earlier in Europe (though, in truth, Luther's biggest problem with Catholicism was indulgences).

[WhiteRaven]

"Some of them were Desists, yes, but not all of them. If you read the Declaration carefully, you'll catch several religious references, such as, "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...", et cetera."

They were deists(okay not all of them, but many were) and they also believed
That people were endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

"Thomas Jefferson certainly believed in God, and that fact is quite obvious from the documents he drafted (not just the Declaration of Independence, but all of his writings)."

uh... Deists do believe in god. They just don't believe he directly interferes in nature, anymore.

"This is partially true. In actuality, the dominant religion in early America was Protestantism (Puritans). Judaism and Catholicism were highly frowned upon and even prohibited for some time. The founding fathers realized that this could not continue, and that all people should be allowed to worship as they saw fit. Since Protestants ran everything in colonial America, they decided the best course of action would be to completely separate secular authority from religious authority; that is, the leader of no particular church could pass laws or have civil authority merely on the basis of religion. The Inquisition and people who "were tired of being afraid of god", as you put it, are what sparked the Protestant Reformation some time earlier in Europe (though, in truth, Luther's biggest problem with Catholicism was indulgences)."

I see... thanks for clearing that up. Honestly, the stories about puritans always pissed me off even when I was a Xian.

[General Septem]

How did they do that? What exactly and precisely were "religious matters", according to the founders of our Republic?

No laws made that enforce strictly religious beliefs. E.g., no restricting the sale of alcohol on Sundays because of Church, no absurd religious-based sex laws, no government sponsored abstinence only education, and no giving tax dollars to religious operations and televangelists.

Obviously, it's well enforced. :rolleyes:

[Walter Weiss]

No laws made that enforce strictly religious beliefs. E.g., no restricting the sale of alcohol on Sundays because of Church, no absurd religious-based sex laws, no government sponsored abstinence only education, and no giving tax dollars to religious operations and televangelists.

Obviously, it's well enforced. :rolleyes:

Organized religion is often organized prejudism. We cannot, should not, and can never risk our children to a "religious government." If you want church, then go to the church of your choice, but let no church ever control government!

Iran is a shining example of a religious government and what it has to offer.

There are christians in this world that would put a bullet in your head for Jesus just like some of the muslims would for the prophet Mohammed!

It was right and good that religion and matters of government were well separated. Constitution means exactly what it says, and it provides an opportunity for all people to have rights and remedies. A religious government would destroy many of those opportunities for many people.

[hitekredneck]

Organized religion is often organized prejudism. We cannot, should not, and can never risk our children to a "religious government." If you want church, then go to the church of your choice, but let no church ever control government!

Iran is a shining example of a religious government and what it has to offer.

There are christians in this world that would put a bullet in your head for Jesus just like some of the muslims would for the prophet Mohammed!

It was right and good that religion and matters of government were well separated. Constitution means exactly what it says, and it provides an opportunity for all people to have rights and remedies. A religious government would destroy many of those opportunities for many people.

well put...theocracies are bad news for personal freedom...while i defend the government entities their right to practice as they see fit, religion should have no basis in lawmaking :cool:

EDIT:
i see no problem whit things like the ten commandments on government property, however...the morals preched by the majority of the commandments are actual foundations in law, and the constitution expressly forbids governmental imposition of religios teachings

[Flash The Cash]

if i understand the question properly, i believe that the people wished freedom to practice as they saw fit...too much of early christianity was owned by the catholic church...and after the horrors of the inquisition, they were tired of being afraid of god...so, freedom to choose the manner of worship as well as the freedom not to worship at all, that's what they willed

What if religious actions were in opposition to one's social duties, broke out into over acts against peace and good order, or manifestly threaten the existence of the state or infringed on another's fundamental rights?

[hitekredneck]

What if religious actions were in opposition to one's social duties, broke out into over acts against peace and good order, or manifestly threaten the existence of the state or infringed on another's fundamental rights?

first off, i don't think somebody with true faith would accept a position that would oppose with social duties, tho i could be wrong...i don't quite get what you mean by breaking out into?...and as for the threats, hell, we're threatened all the time currently by islamic extremeists...we haven't started locking all the muslims up and refusing them the opportunity to worship:cool:

[Flash The Cash]

In actuality, the dominant religion in early America was Protestantism (Puritans).

Protestantism is not Puritanism, dude.

Puritanism was not the dominant religion in 1788. Protestant Episcopalians was.


Judaism and Catholicism were highly frowned upon and even prohibited for some time. The founding fathers realized that this could not continue, and that all people should be allowed to worship as they saw fit.

Are you saying that people's wish was for nothing more from the national government than the freedom to worship as they saw fit?


Since Protestants ran everything in colonial America, they decided the best course of action would be to completely separate secular authority from religious authority; that is, the leader of no particular church could pass laws or have civil authority merely on the basis of religion.

Is that all that complete separation of secular from civil authority is? What about civil authorities trying to influence or actually make laws regarding religion?

[Flash The Cash]

No laws made that enforce strictly religious beliefs. E.g., no restricting the sale of alcohol on Sundays because of Church, no absurd religious-based sex laws, no government sponsored abstinence only education, and no giving tax dollars to religious operations and televangelists.


Show me where the people expressed those wishes in the Constitution.

[Flash The Cash]

It was right and good that religion and matters of government were well separated. Constitution means exactly what it says.

Which is what?

[Flash The Cash]

first off, i don't think somebody with true faith would accept a position that would oppose with social duties, tho i could be wrong...

I was talking about the case where discharging ones religious duties violated one's social duties.


i don't quite get what you mean by breaking out into?

I have a bad habit of sounding like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson at times. Jefferson wrote that "it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order..."


...and as for the threats, hell, we're threatened all the time currently by islamic extremeists...we haven't started locking all the muslims up and refusing them the opportunity to worship.

So what are you saying about religious actions that manifestly threaten the existence of the state or violate another's rights? Are they protected by separation of church and state or not?

[hitekredneck]

I was talking about the case where discharging ones religious duties violated one's social duties.
sorry, but i think it still works out the same...it would be difficult at best for one to interfere with the other



I have a bad habit of sounding like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson at times. Jefferson wrote that "it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order..."[/QUOTE]
i get it now, and yes, the government has not only the right to interfere, but the responsibility as well



So what are you saying about religious actions that manifestly threaten the existence of the state or violate another's rights? Are they protected by separation of church and state or not?[/QUOTE]

any faith or religion is lawful in the united states...faiths that actively threaten our people or violate anothers rights are lawful as long as legality is maintained

[Flash The Cash]

i defend the government entities their right to practice as they see fit

Huh? Since when do government entities have duties to the Creator, other than not to trespass on his authority over religion?


religion should have no basis in lawmaking

Define religion for me.


I see no problem wiht things like the ten commandments on government property

I do. The first five commandment are purely religious. The government has no business suggesting that people put no other gods before a particular one, make no graven images and and bow down to them, not take the "Lord's" name in vain or remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.


however...the morals preached by the majority of the commandments are actual foundations in law, and the constitution expressly forbids governmental imposition of religious teachings

Morals and ethics are not religion, dude. Morals and ethics involve man's duties to his fellow man. Religion involves a man's duties to his Creator.

[something]

Define religion for me.

That's funny because it's true :D

[hitekredneck]

Huh? Since when do government entities have duties to the Creator, other than not to trespass on his authority over religion?
simple...they have their personal duties as proscribed by their faith...



Define religion for me.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom9. get religion, Informal. a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

[Origin: 1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely]



I do. The first five commandment are purely religious. The government has no business suggesting that people put no other gods before a particular one, make no graven images and and bow down to them, not take the "Lord's" name in vain or remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
just because the commandments are there, doesn't even suggest that the government is forcing people to follow any particular religion...i would no more forbid any other religious writings from say, the q'uran


Morals and ethics are not religion, dude. Morals and ethics involve man's duties to his fellow man. Religion involves a man's duties to his Creator.

i never stated that morals and ethics are religion, my friend...what i stated was that the morals and ethics taught by religion are, in true fact, the foundations of our very laws...if you're interested, read brownstone, who's writings were the foundation for the need of evidence and proof of crime for conviction

[Walter Weiss]

TO ALL WHO CARE TO READ: Organized religion in government will cause nuclear holocaust and there is no questions about it.

Some things that we see in organized religion range from wars, genocide, irrational behaviors, prejudism, sexual abuse of children, manipulation of others, forced unions, religious rituals that cause physical and social harm, suicides, weirded out, wacked out, crazy hocus pocus shit!

Organized religion belongs in a church...which is a form of crazy house for some, and a form of sanctuary for others, and a form of commercial enterprise for still others. Organized religion is unreliable, and often illogical. We need logic in government. Not "hocus-pocus Jesus told me to do it" politicians!

[Paisleyspeaker]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The very first words in the very first amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights without which the constitution probably would not have been ratified. So it's safe to say that it was important to the American People is pretty accurate. To say that most of the founding fathers believed in God is probably also accurate, but less important than other things. Like the Reformation, the bodycount for that religious conflict played out through the governments of Europe was staggering. Most early Americans were either immegrants or second generation, they would have remeber it, and maybe had ancestors that died in it. They had good reason to fear religion in government. The persecution that the Puritans suffered was the tip of the iceberg.

[General Septem]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The very first words in the very first amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights without which the constitution probably would not have been ratified. So it's safe to say that it was important to the American People is pretty accurate. To say that most of the founding fathers believed in God is probably also accurate, but less important than other things. Like the Reformation, the bodycount for that religious conflict played out through the governments of Europe was staggering. Most early Americans were either immegrants or second generation, they would have remeber it, and maybe had ancestors that died in it. They had good reason to fear religion in government. The persecution that the Puritans suffered was the tip of the iceberg.

Hey, welcome back :D


Show me where the people expressed those wishes in the Constitution.

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

[Walter Weiss]

Show me where the people expressed those wishes in the Constitution.


Much of what was said describes laws that are similar to orindances....ie...."be it ordained by the governing body of xxxxx, etc,etc,etc,...

Part of States Rights and the right to self govern communities by a body of elected officials serving as commission or council does and would allow for establishing local law and regulatory ordinances designed to preserve sanitation, peace, and to protect the economic welfare of one's community on the whole. When you draft such an instrument, and it is voted into law, in most cases, one will add a severability clause indicating that if any part of the prohibited acts or behaviors in that instrument should at some point be determined to be specific acts that the constitution would not support the prohibition of, then that part of your instrument...of your ordinance....would be null.

The application of constitutional issues to local laws and ordinances is determined by higher courts, up to and including the supreme court, as a result of appeal processes, civil suits, etc, etc. It is not in the hands of the common citizen as an indiviual to decide those issues, because anarchy is not legal. You have to turn to the court system [which is constitutionally established] for relief, and to seek a remedy. One is not free to pick up a gun or a knife or club and attack those who have participated in enacting an ordinance suspected to be un-constitutional. One is free to seek relief in an American court. If one does not have money to afford a legal assistant to seek that relief, then there are organizations to turn to that will assist with that relief.

The constitution is a noble piece of work, but like may legal instruments, it is not a cure-all, nor is it an oracle containing the answers to all things, all snags, and all disputes. It is subject to interpretation by learned council, and sholars of American law, and it is ultimately up to the American court system to decide how an issue is to be interpreted. You can appeal all the way to the Supreme court if you feel strongly enough about an issue.

We have to have the ability to enact ordinances to control local conditions for the protection of communities who have issues that may be specific to that community based on terrain, demographics, local economic conditions, etc, etc.

THERE IS NO FREE-FOR-ALL lawlessness possible in any society of human beings because of the danger it creates for all concern.

[Walter Weiss]

Which is what?

Read it you dork! And read the caselaw that accompanies the matter providing for interpretation of areas not apparent or clear.

No religious organization should ever have "control" over the masses!

The last people on this Earth that would practice "fair and impartial" would be some religious nuts on a power trip in public office. That has been tried. Everything from torture to witchburning to slavery resulted. How healthy was that?

[Walter Weiss]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The very first words in the very first amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights without which the constitution probably would not have been ratified. So it's safe to say that it was important to the American People is pretty accurate. To say that most of the founding fathers believed in God is probably also accurate, but less important than other things. Like the Reformation, the bodycount for that religious conflict played out through the governments of Europe was staggering. Most early Americans were either immegrants or second generation, they would have remeber it, and maybe had ancestors that died in it. They had good reason to fear religion in government. The persecution that the Puritans suffered was the tip of the iceberg.

We had religious persecution in government right here in USA! Have you ever heard of the Witch Trials? The executions by burning witches at the stake? There are morons out there that would do it again this day if they got their twisted little selves elected to a position from which they could do great damage. Church and Courthouse are two separate buildings in anyone's town. Let them remain separate for the safety of all concerned!

[Walter Weiss]

The topic of this thread is:

What was the will of the American people regarding the relationship of religion to the U. S. Government, at the time they adopted the U. S. Constitution?


The question answers itself. The question indicates that Religion is "one subject." The question indicates that Government is "another subject." Logic would indicate that they are separate subjects. If they are separate subjects, then they are not LINKED AT ALL until someone with an "AGENDA" were to try to link them!

Peas are peas. Apples are apples. One is a vegetable. The other a fruit. They are not linked. They are separate, unless you are stupid enough to mix them together and eat the shit!

Religion is not government. Government is not religion. In the past, it was religion that "invaded government" and organized pogroms, prejudism, and very hideous laws and penalties that did much damage. What in the hell would you want to come on the scene now, and try to re-link the two issues?

Are the churches clamouring for "control" and "access to the tax coffers? I rather think that they are corrupt enough to do that, while they hide behind a "divine excuse" for wanting to do so! It is a danger to us all if allowed. Let the dead speak from the graves where they were put by religious oppression in government!

It is assinine to link these two subjects.....you religious nuts clamour that religion is spiritual....controlled by spirits that are not of the Earth....well, government is of the Earth, and we dont need hocus-pocus in government. What we need is fact and reality. Not bullshit and oppression. We are dealing with enough oppression now without adding the heavy doses from the religious nuts.

I would say to all the fruitcakes who want religion in government that if they want something to control, then control your own churches. Concentrate on stopping your clergymen from sodomizing children. Concentrate on controlling the greed and corruption in your own organizations. We are fighting enough corruption in government now, without adding the massive corruption that is commonplace in your church organizations! Many of you claim that the Catholic Church is superior to all other religions on the planet. There is sure as hell lots of sodomy being practiced on children in the Catholic church, and a tendency to hide the officials doing it!

GET LOST....go back to your churches and spin your deceptions. We dont need your organized prejudism in government!

[WhiteRaven]

"The executions by burning witches at the stake?"

Not that it makes any difference whatsoever, but the witches in Salem were not burned, they were hanged.

[Flash The Cash]

That's funny because it's true :D

I read you to say that you don't meaning anything when you use the word "religion."

[Flash The Cash]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The very first words in the very first amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights without which the constitution probably would not have been ratified.

The Constitution was ratified and given legal effect without a Bill of Rights.


So it's safe to say that it was important to the American People is pretty accurate.

The historical evidence suggests that it was not very important at all in the minds of most Americans.



To say that most of the founding fathers believed in God is probably also accurate, but less important than other things. Like the Reformation, the bodycount for that religious conflict played out through the governments of Europe was staggering. Most early Americans were either immegrants or second generation, they would have remeber it, and maybe had ancestors that died in it. They had good reason to fear religion in government. The persecution that the Puritans suffered was the tip of the iceberg.

What exactly is "religion in government?" What do you mean by "religion?'

[Flash The Cash]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

If that's what you mean by the phrase "separation of church and state", its fine with me. I just want to know what you (and others) mean by the phrase.

What exactly is the principle of separation of church and state? What is the fundamental principle or rule (in as few words as possible - hopefully in just one sentence?


The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

I don't care where a phrase comes from or the name you use to signify an intellectual concept. I just want to know the meaning you assign to the phrase, so I am clear about what you are saying.

I don't like to discuss or debate vague ambiguous words, terms, phrases or sentences. I only debate clear (well articulated) ideas.

I use the phrase in question to signify the idea, or intellectual concept, of no civil authority over religion, which I believe is found primarily in the Constitution's non-delegation, to the U. S. Government, of power over religion; not in the First Amendment. The First Amendment added nothing to, or took away from, the powers granted in the Constitution to the U. S. Government. It was intended merely to make it clear that none of the powers granted to the national government were to be construed to give the government any sort of power over religion.

[Flash The Cash]

...Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The phrase doesn't really tell us much about the effects of the two clause. Jefferson just created the potential for misunderstanding by substituting the ambiguous word "church" for the ambiguous word "religion." Also, his letter implies that the Constitution united religion and civil authority, then the First Amendment separated them. He did a much better job eight years later in his letter to Samuel Miller.


The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

True. However, contrary to the propaganda of the Religious Right, it was never a primary source of the meaning of the First Amendment. The Reynolds Court, in 1878, cited it only to confirm what it had already derived from two other historical documents; and to attach to its interpretation of the First Amendment, the name already given to the Virginian concept of religious liberty, by the American people.

Reynolds is a poorly reasoned and written opinion. However, the ruling was correct. It was so obvious to the Court - that James Madison's view of religious liberty was that which prevailed in all of the early major disputes over the meaning of the Constitution regarding the relationship of religion to government - that it did a sloppy job on the opinion.

[Flash The Cash]

The constitution is a noble piece of work, but like may legal instruments, it is not a cure-all, nor is it an oracle containing the answers to all things, all snags, and all disputes. It is subject to interpretation...

What are the rules of Constitutional Interpretation?

[Walter Weiss]

"The executions by burning witches at the stake?"

Not that it makes any difference whatsoever, but the witches in Salem were not burned, they were hanged.


There were witches that were burned as well......some were crushed to death by having rocks piled upon them.

[Walter Weiss]

What are the rules of Constitutional Interpretation?

Why dont you carry your radical ass to the county courthouse, enter the law library, find a book and sit down and read caselaw, and study how and why things are considered in that fashion. If you are asking questions like this, then you are not ready even to raise any questions yet....you still have some studying to do! Put down your copy of JUGGS magazine, put away your marihuana, sober up, and go study some law for a day or two!

[Flash The Cash]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I read you to say you have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

[Walter Weiss]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I read you to say you have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

You are talking Sally, Dick and Jane at this stage. Keep reading, you have a long way to go....long way to go. This thing is vast, and you are a knat sitting on the back of a hippo, claiming to be able to see the world from there. Keep reading.....you have a long way to go yet.....

[Flash The Cash]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I still read you to say you have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

Here's a hit:


Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that, on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not, consequently, restrain the states from retrospective laws in civil cases; and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005250)):

[Walter Weiss]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I still read you to say you have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

Here's a hit:


Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that, on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term "ex post facto" related to criminal cases only; that they would not, consequently, restrain the states from retrospective laws in civil cases; and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed005250)):

BooBoo....you have read about Sally, you are starting to read about Dick....but unitl you reach puberty in your studies, you still have no idea how to have fun with Jane. BooBoo....keep studying.....move a little farther ahead.....read on....and stop trying to minimize the subject with that bullshit. It has been done in here in the past.....there is more to it than Sally Dick and Jane.....keep reading.....and climb down off of the back of the hippo.

Some day.....you will put away your communism, and you will join the American Nation in mind and spirit as well as in residence! If not, you can always defect to China!

[Flash The Cash]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I see you still have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

What well established common law rule of construction led Mr. Dickenson to Blackstone's writings on the subject matter of ex post facto laws for the meaning of the term "ex post facto?" Here's a hint:


3. AS to the fubject matter, words are always to be underftood as having a regard thereto; for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye of the legiflator, and all his expreffions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclefiaftical perfons to purchafe provifions at Rome, it might feem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victual; but when we confider that the ftatute was made to reprefs the ufurpations of the papal fee, and that the nominations to vacant benefices by the pope were called provifions, we fhall fee that the reftraint is intended to be laid upon fuch provifions only.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm#1

[Walter Weiss]

Dear Walter Weiss:

I see you still have no idea what the well established common law rules of construction were in 1788 when the Constitution was made the law of the land.

What well established common law rule of construction led Mr. Dickenson to Blackstone's writings on the subject matter of ex post facto laws for the meaning of the term "ex post facto?" Here's a hint:


3. AS to the fubject matter, words are always to be underftood as having a regard thereto; for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye of the legiflator, and all his expreffions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclefiaftical perfons to purchafe provifions at Rome, it might feem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victual; but when we confider that the ftatute was made to reprefs the ufurpations of the papal fee, and that the nominations to vacant benefices by the pope were called provifions, we fhall fee that the reftraint is intended to be laid upon fuch provifions only.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/introa.htm#1

BooBoo....this is not cutting it.....you need to study, and you need to realize that there are many baskets in which to put your eggs....all of them dont belong in this basket. Go read about Jane now...and then come back for a little more!

[WhiteRaven]

"3. AS to the fubject matter, words are always to be underftood as having a regard thereto; for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye of the legiflator, and all his expreffions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclefiaftical perfons to purchafe provifions at Rome, it might feem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victual; but when we confider that the ftatute was made to reprefs the ufurpations of the papal fee, and that the nominations to vacant benefices by the pope were called provifions, we fhall fee that the reftraint is intended to be laid upon fuch provifions only."

what for did you replace all your S'es with F's?

[General Septem]

what for did you replace all your S'es with F's?

It's an archaic form of the letter s. It's basically a long lowercase "f" without the cross stroke.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government can't stay out of religious affairs if it's already involved with an other. The separation of church and state keeps both away from eachother, not just state from church.

[Walter Weiss]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Government can't stay out of religious affairs if it's already involved with an other. The separation of church and state keeps both away from eachother, not just state from church.

We dont need the churches running anything in this country other than the churches.

We dont need the government running the churches....although they do need to be severely taxed because the churches "are in business" to make a profit, and are run like a business. If money is the root of all evil, then the churches must be evil, because they will do just about anything to get their hands on money!

[Walter Weiss]

"3. AS to the fubject matter, words are always to be underftood as having a regard thereto; for that is always fuppofed to be in the eye of the legiflator, and all his expreffions directed to that end. Thus, when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclefiaftical perfons to purchafe provifions at Rome, it might feem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victual; but when we confider that the ftatute was made to reprefs the ufurpations of the papal fee, and that the nominations to vacant benefices by the pope were called provifions, we fhall fee that the reftraint is intended to be laid upon fuch provifions only."

what for did you replace all your S'es with F's?

He erroneously believes that ELMER FUDD was the true builder of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[Walter Weiss]

It's an archaic form of the letter s. It's basically a long lowercase "f" without the cross stroke.

Altschrift?......German?