NationStates

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Jaselvania wrote:
BREAKING NEWS: The “wall of separation” phrase used to claim separation of church and state comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson wrote a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is NOT mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

I,... I don't even know what side you're on anymore.

Jaselvania wrote:

The Wolven League wrote:We really should. Every religion has extremists. Your points about the Muslims are irrelevant, since those are not in the US nor is it all of the Muslim population in the region, not even close. And I think you are ignoring that Christians committed far worse crimes in the Crusades.

1. I'm not making a point "about Muslims", I'm making a point that there are people today using a religion in FAR WORSE and more violent ways then Christians in the US.
2. Yes, yes they are in the US. http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-09-27/first-us-isis-beheading-oklahoma
3. I'm re-reading what I wrote but I'm failing to see where I said, or even implied, that it was "all of the Muslim population in the region". I've lived "there" & have friends "there". So please don't make-up words or implied intent for me, k? Thanks . . .

Oh, and last but not least . . . .

4. No, I'm not ignoring the completely irrelevant fact that almost 1000 years ago the Christians possibly committed terrible acts in the Crusades (which, btw, was a defensive war against Islamic conquest. Just saying.) Your use of "far worse crimes" is a silly overstatement since neither you or I can even start to comprehend with rational thought crimes worse then burning a man alive.

Jaselvania wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I,... I don't even know what side you're on anymore.

I'm on the side of the Constitution. Most likely the same side you're on. I just like to be fair in my belief that we've put waaaay too much stock in the word SUPREME of the supreme court and blindly follow whatever interpretation of the Constitution they say we must. This is always one of the easiest issues to debate that point (the other being the SCOTUS ruling that internment of all Japanese people in WWII was, in fact, Constitutional).

Jaselvania wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Actually, it's not taken out of context at all, nor does it matter that it isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.

No, it DOES matter, the intent of the words as written is pretty clear. If we want to clearly establish "Separation of Church and State" as Supreme law of the United States then we should amend the Constitution to say just that.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Jaselvania wrote:
No, it is NOT the same f'ing thing, and that is my point. The 1st Amendment very clearly forbids an official establishment of religion. No where does It require strict “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and/or religious persons from public affairs of state (gov't). In fact, this adoption of the strict "Separation of Church and State" directly opposes the protection of the “free exercise” of religion IN THE SAME AMENDMENT.

It forbids making Laws. An Amendment is not the same as a Law. It's a change, or an addition to the Constitution. Amendments are not beholden to previous amendments. Because A, the Constitution can't nullify itself, and B. There's no court with Jurisdiction to strike down Amendments to the constitution.

Dyakovo wrote:

Jaselvania wrote:
No, it DOES matter, the intent of the words as written is pretty clear. If we want to clearly establish "Separation of Church and State" as Supreme law of the United States then we should amend the Constitution to say just that.

Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

Jaselvania wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

I,... I don't even know what side you're on anymore.

I'm on the side of the Constitution. Most likely the same side you're on. I just like to be fair in my belief that we've put waaaay too much stock in the word SUPREME of the supreme court and blindly follow whatever interpretation of the Constitution they say we must. This is always one of the easiest issues to debate that point (the other being the SCOTUS ruling that internment of all Japanese people in WWII was, in fact, Constitutional).

Jaselvania wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
It forbids making Laws. An Amendment is not the same as a Law. It's a change, or an addition to the Constitution. Amendments are not beholden to previous amendments. Because A, the Constitution can't nullify itself, and B. There's no court with Jurisdiction to strike down Amendments to the constitution.

But the Constitution IS the LAW. It's probably why I see this as almost a circular argument and my brain is giving me an error message and forcing me to argue that there is no constitutionality to our modern day literal use of the separation of church and state.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

Why does everyone have to pick on Scalia....

Dyakovo wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Why does everyone have to pick on Scalia....

Because he's a partisan hack?

Ifreann wrote:

Larrylykinsland wrote:Both Britian and America were refered to as girls. I didn't know nations could be lesbians

All nations are lesbians.

Alyakia wrote:doesn't mean much without definition of national religion

england (yes, england, not the UK) has an established church and they're doing a lot better on the overall secularism scale

e: though i suppose it's technically bad regardless

Yuketobaniac wrote:

Alyakia wrote:doesn't mean much without definition of national religion

england (yes, england, not the UK) has an established church and they're doing a lot better on the overall secularism scale

e: though i suppose it's technically bad regardless

Catholics *shivers* id'e take My people over them anyday.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

Why does everyone have to pick on Scalia....

Dyakovo wrote:

Jaselvania wrote:
No, it DOES matter, the intent of the words as written is pretty clear. If we want to clearly establish "Separation of Church and State" as Supreme law of the United States then we should amend the Constitution to say just that.

Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

Jaselvania wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

WRONG. Only people who think they're smarter then everyone else have trouble realizing that YOUR INTERPRETATION DOESN'T MATTER. The Constitution is clear as day and doesn't need to be "interpreted" for us "idiots".

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Jaselvania wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

WRONG. Only people who think they're smarter then everyone else have trouble realizing that your smarty-pants interpretation of words that aren't there DOESN'T MATTER. The Constitution is clear as day and doesn't need to be "interpreted" for us "idiots".

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Jaselvania wrote:
But the Constitution IS the LAW. It's probably why I see this as almost a circular argument and my brain is giving me an error message and forcing me to argue that there is no constitutionality to our modern day literal use of the separation of church and state.

Think of it as a hierarchy. The constitution is supreme, and therefore technically cant contradict itself. Two conflicting laws of equal stature are both equally valid and you must interpret between the two laws. The Establishement clause refers to Laws, which are the laws congress passes, not the Constitution itself. Those laws are not of equal stature, thus the higher one, the constitution, cancels out the lower one, the law.

Insaeldor wrote:Quick check of the numbers as I understand shows that such numbers equal out to about 17,000,000 to 18,000,000 which is about 5.5-6% of the total population. That's actually a lot lower than I expected it to be. Still I find it laughable that these "constitutionalist" simaltaniusly uses the first amendment to justify their positions and want to destroy it at the same time it's hypocrisy at its finest.

Jaselvania wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
Think of it as a hierarchy. The constitution is supreme, and therefore technically cant contradict itself. Two conflicting laws of equal stature are both equally valid and you must interpret between the two laws. The Establishement clause refers to Laws, which are the laws congress passes, not the Constitution itself. Those laws are not of equal stature, thus the higher one, the constitution, cancels out the lower one, the law.

Oooh, I like this concept! If only we could get our government to understand it this clearly . . .

Jaselvania wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong.The separation of church and state is clearly established without the words appearing in the text. Only idiots Who don't comprehend common law legal systems and/or don't realize that that is the type of legal system in place in the US have any trouble with the concept.

WRONG. Only people who think they're smarter then everyone else have trouble realizing that your smarty-pants interpretation of words that aren't there DOESN'T MATTER. The Constitution is clear as day and doesn't need to be "interpreted" for us "idiots".

"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

Risottia wrote:The Constitution of the US states that there's a Supreme Court that's tasked with interpreting the wording of the Constitution whenever a doubt may arise, iirc.

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:

Insaeldor wrote:Quick check of the numbers as I understand shows that such numbers equal out to about 17,000,000 to 18,000,000 which is about 5.5-6% of the total population. That's actually a lot lower than I expected it to be. Still I find it laughable that these "constitutionalist" simaltaniusly uses the first amendment to justify their positions and want to destroy it at the same time it's hypocrisy at its finest.

It would be great if you like read the thread before commenting.

Insaeldor wrote:

Tarsonis Survivors wrote:
It would be great if you like read the thread before commenting.

My comment was directed directly at the OP and not anything you or anyone else had previously posted in the thread. So why would I read the thread when I'm responding to the OP which I've read already?