Did Christine O'Donnell pass High School Civics?

[Vandengaarde]

I hate the generalizations and assumptions at someone's intelligence based on something they said. It could have been a mistake, or perhaps something else, but anything in the air shall be gripped by those wishing to cause chaos and be used as an instrument of propaganda.

I know, judging people on what they say when running for office, as opposed to...

Uh...

What you want them to say.

Judging someone based on their past stances and things they said several years ago is stupid.

I do NOT oppose judging her for this quote though, unless, as it says in the article, she was misunderstood, which is a possibility being completely ignored here.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Did Barney Frank pass High School Economics? ANY Economics?
'' for Harry Reid
'' for Nancy Pelosi
'' for Chuck Schumer
etcetera.

Why, instead of acknowledging the obvious and many faults of people like Palin, do you attempt to deflect criticisms on to people from the other party? O'Donnell is possible the most idiotic, insane candidate to ever run for national office, and yet instead of realizing she is completely nuts you attempt to shift criticism onto people who have much, much better track records and who have displayed far greater intelligence. You and your ilk confuse me with your doublethink.

Isn't that exactly what the OP did? Besides, everything you (and I, to be fair) said were normative statements. That's the point I was trying to make. But you and your ilk though I was saying something confusing.

[The Black Forrest]

no theyre not.

14th ammendment, eh?

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

Well there you have it. We can ignore the historical writings, the legal scholars, constitutional scholars, and the supreme court.

Have you even graduated?

[Ashmoria]

I know, judging people on what they say when running for office, as opposed to...

Uh...

What you want them to say.

Judging someone based on their past stances and things they said several years ago is stupid.

I do NOT oppose judging her for this quote though, unless, as it says in the article, she was misunderstood, which is a possibility being completely ignored here.

oh watch the video. she wasnt misunderstood at all.

[Vandengaarde]

Judging someone based on their past stances and things they said several years ago is stupid.

I do NOT oppose judging her for this quote though, unless, as it says in the article, she was misunderstood, which is a possibility being completely ignored here.

oh watch the video. she wasnt misunderstood at all.

I haven't the want nor the need to watch videos of transcribed speeches. And I shall review the events described later, and also get back to you on that.

[Ashmoria]

oh watch the video. she wasnt misunderstood at all.

I haven't the want nor the need to watch videos of transcribed speeches. And I shall review the events described later, and also get back to you on that.

you can take my word for it.

the transcripts dont get the full flow of the back and forth.

[Vandengaarde]

I haven't the want nor the need to watch videos of transcribed speeches. And I shall review the events described later, and also get back to you on that.

you can take my word for it.

the transcripts dont get the full flow of the back and forth.

Yeah, I guess. If you hear the way she said it it could mean everything.

[The Andromeda Islands]

Was Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell showcasing her utter ignorance of the Constitution on Tuesday when, at a debate with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, she asked him: “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

Or was she simply asking Coons where in the Constitution the actual words “separation of church and state” appear?

Many politicians are guided by their personal religious beliefs. I think that what Christine O'Donnell types want us to believe is that "separation of church and state" means something other than what is expressly written in the First Amendment: No state religion & no hinderance to freedom of religion.

There are many in politics who want us to simply talk at each other, instead of having a civil discussion.

[Ashmoria]

Was Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell showcasing her utter ignorance of the Constitution on Tuesday when, at a debate with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, she asked him: “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

Or was she simply asking Coons where in the Constitution the actual words “separation of church and state” appear?

Many politicians are guided by their personal religious beliefs. I think that what Christine O'Donnell types want us to believe is that "separation of church and state" means something other than what is expressly written in the First Amendment: No state religion & no hinderance to freedom of religion.

There are many in politics who want us to simply talk at each other, instead of having a civil discussion.

what i found disturbing is not that she didnt understand the first ammendment. it is in effect whether she understands it or not.

i really didnt like her insistence that we need to get the feds out of education (get rid of the dept of education) so local school districts can decide whether to teach evolution or replace it with intelligent design.

[The Black Forrest]

Many politicians are guided by their personal religious beliefs. I think that what Christine O'Donnell types want us to believe is that "separation of church and state" means something other than what is expressly written in the First Amendment: No state religion & no hinderance to freedom of religion.

There are many in politics who want us to simply talk at each other, instead of having a civil discussion.

what i found disturbing is not that she didnt understand the first ammendment. it is in effect whether she understands it or not.

i really didnt like her insistence that we need to get the feds out of education (get rid of the dept of education) so local school districts can decide whether to teach evolution or replace it with intelligent design.

Well it does have some logic. If we get rid of all that pesky engineering, math and science then we can recover all those factory jobs and we wouldn't need illegals to pick the fields.

[Fred Fred Fred Fred]

I would be a great deal more interested in knowing this obviously limited gene-pool's source of funding then her grades in high school.

[Myrensis]

I do NOT oppose judging her for this quote though, unless, as it says in the article, she was misunderstood, which is a possibility being completely ignored here.

The possibility is not being ignored, the problem is that she didn't actually make any sort of argument about application of the First Amendment, it was just a blank "There's words in the Constitution?!" statement.

If you're running for public office you don't, or at least should not, get the luxury of making monosyllable statements and then allowing your supporters to spin it into some well reasoned argument for you.

"Oh, well clearly when she said "I like kitties." what she actually meant was *insert thesis on the influence of Judeo-Christian religious values on modern American political discourse and development of legal doctrine*"

[Kowalewski]

l944 - US VS BALLARD
Ballard arrested for using US mail to obtain money under false pretenses.
Ballard - his own church I AM MOVEMENT
He had been "selected" by divine messenger
He was told to solicit money to carry out God's work.
Men may believe what we can't prove.
Do we need to prove his vision?
Does it matter if incident is real or not?
What if he is an actual Catholic priest?
What is religion? Should Court define it?
What is danger here?
May a single person establish his own religion?
Does his church need guidelines such as services?
(Supreme Court - legal)

l976 - SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE VS. MILIVOJEVICH
Milivojevich - Bishop - fired without cause, appealed case on grounds fired unjustly. (Supreme Court - this is strictly a church matter).

l879 - REYNOLDS VS US.
Mormon practice of polygamy based on religious practice. (Supreme Court says no.)

l934 - HAMILTON VS REGENTS OF U OF CALIFORNIA
Methodist-Episcopal church - religious beliefs forbid military training. State law requires course in Military Science/Training Tactic. Legal state law? (Supreme Court - No)

l963 - SHERBERT VS VERNER
7th Day Adventist fined for refusal to work on Saturday - denied unemployment compensation. (Supreme - ruling stands, can't change system)

clear things up?

[Caninope]

Was Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell showcasing her utter ignorance of the Constitution on Tuesday when, at a debate with Democratic opponent Chris Coons, she asked him: “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?”

Or was she simply asking Coons where in the Constitution the actual words “separation of church and state” appear?

Many politicians are guided by their personal religious beliefs. I think that what Christine O'Donnell types want us to believe is that "separation of church and state" means something other than what is expressly written in the First Amendment: No state religion & no hinderance to freedom of religion.

There are many in politics who want us to simply talk at each other, instead of having a civil discussion.

Good, because not having a state religion, and not hindering other worship of religion (or non-worship) still doesn't equal separation of church and state.

Even the Lemon test doesn't require complete separation.

[Kowalewski]

wow you took a while to post something also; it does as the supreme court said numerous times so. do you need me to use smaller words or is this clear enough for 'rednecks' like you to understand, or is the majority of America (i live in Northern California) this bad.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

wow you took a while to post something also; it does as the supreme court said numerous times so. do you need me to use smaller words or is this clear enough for 'rednecks' like you to understand, or is the majority of America (i live in Northern California) this bad.

This post is so full of irony I couldn't even choose a comment to make. Therefore, I figured I'd just point it out.

[Kowalewski]

thank you for answering my question.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

thank you for answering my question.

Well, given your question was insulting and elitist, while at the same time lacking in any sort of English grammar or punctuation, it didn't really merit an answer.

[Kowalewski]

thats what i mean

[Jingoist Hippostan]

thats what i mean

...What?

I know, judging people on what they say when running for office, as opposed to...

Uh...

What you want them to say.

Judging someone based on their past stances and things they said several years ago is stupid.

I do NOT oppose judging her for this quote though, unless, as it says in the article, she was misunderstood, which is a possibility being completely ignored here.

I don't know, if a politician said "Black people are, as it says in the Bible, cursed Children of Ham who should be eradicated from the face of the Earth" three years before they ran for office, would you judge them for it?

[Kowalewski]

r u still talking about me or have we moved on?

[Dryk Reborn]

Well it does have some logic. If we get rid of all that pesky engineering, math and science then we can recover all those factory jobs and we wouldn't need illegals to pick the fields.

On the one hand, it's not fair to the kids that know better. But on the other hand it puts a dent in my future competition.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The stupidity of O'Donnell's remarks are there for anyone who reads the transcript to see.

The stupidity of anyone that defends the notion that the First Amendment does not require the separation of Church and State should be easily settled.

As James Madison, primary author of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment, explained "the separation between religion and & Gov't" is "[s]trongly guarded ... in the Constitution of the United States." First, Article VI, Sec. 3 provides: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Then, the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment declare:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

Finally, these Clause apply to state and local governments through incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

To those that raise objections, I am obliged to add (in merciful spoilers) my obligatory (and a tad repetitive) past rants related to this subject:

Re: Establishment Clause & separation of Church and State

1. The phrase, "separation of Church and State" it is merely a shorthand for the Establishment Clause that SCOTUS has adopted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. This the Court first explained 130 years ago in Reynolds v United States, 98 US 145, 162-164 (1878) (emphasis added):

Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territories which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition.

The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution. We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ascertain its meaning, and nowhere more appropriately, we think, than to the history of the times in the midst of which the provision was adopted. The precise point of the inquiry is, what is the religious freedom which has been guaranteed.

Before the adoption of the Constitution, attempts were made in some of the colonies and States to legislate not only in respect to the establishment of religion, but in respect to its doctrines and precepts as well. The people were taxed, against their will, for the support of religion, and sometimes for the support of particular sects to whose tenets they could not and did not subscribe. Punishments were prescribed for a failure to attend upon public worship, and sometimes for entertaining heretical opinions. The controversy upon this general subject was animated in many of the States, but seemed at last to culminate in Virginia. In 1784, the House of Delegates of that State having under consideration 'a bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.'

This brought out a determined opposition. Amongst others, Mr. Madison prepared a 'Memorial and Remonstrance,' which was widely circulated and signed, and in which he demonstrated 'that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,' was not within the cognizance of civil government. Semple's Virginia Baptists, Appendix. At the next session the proposed bill was not only defeated, but another, 'for establishing religious freedom,' drafted by Mr. Jefferson, was passed. 1 Jeff. Works, 45; 2 Howison, Hist. of Va. 298. In the preamble of this act (12 Hening's Stat. 84) religious freedom is defined; and after a recital 'that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty,' it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.

In a little more than a year after the passage of this statute the convention met which prepared the Constitution of the United States.' Of this convention Mr. Jefferson was not a member, he being then absent as minister to France. As soon as he saw the draft of the Constitution proposed for adoption, he, in a letter to a friend, expressed his disappointment at the absence of an express declaration insuring the freedom of religion (2 Jeff. Works, 355), but was willing to accept it as it was, trusting that the good sense and honest intentions of the people would bring about the necessary alterations. 1 Jeff. Works, 79. Five of the States, while adopting the Constitution, proposed amendments. Three-New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia-included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom in the changes they desired to have made, as did also North Carolina, where the convention at first declined to ratify the Constitution until the proposed amendments were acted upon. Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

2. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

3. Finally, although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison (the author of the First Amendment), in particular, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"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" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

EDIT: The First Amendment:

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.

Re: Incorporation (i.e., application of the First Amendment to all government action)

Don't worry about the "Congress shall make no law ...." language as a limitation on the First Amendment. The First Amendment applies to all "state action'--in other words any government action. So the whole federal government is covered. Further, the First Amendment applies to the states through incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., wikipedia; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (free exercise of religion applies to states); Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (establishment clause applies to states).

EDIT: Just in case someone thinks this is a liberal trick, here is an article on incorporation from the National Rifle Association.

Also, consider this language from West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights.

Re: First Amendment forbids aid to one religion, aid to all religions, prefering one religion over another, or perfering religion over non-religion

I'm bored by the topic as presented in the OP, but object to some of the characterizations of separation of Church and State in this thread. In particular, I object to the notion that the First Amendment forbids only a government establishment of a single religion or preference for one sect over another.

The First Amendment forbids any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. These are the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

SCOTUS has expounded on this concept in subsequent caselaw. In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), for example, the Court expresly rejected the argument that the Establishment Clause prohibits only government discrimination among various sects:

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.

See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 US 577 (1992) ("The First Amendment's Religion Clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State. The design of the Constitution is that preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere, which itself is promised freedom to pursue that mission. It must not be forgotten, then, that, while concern must be given to define the protection granted to an objector or a dissenting nonbeliever, these same Clauses exist to protect religion from government interference."); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs").

Re Puritan foundations of separation of Church and State

The Establishment Clause has, in part, roots in even the beliefs of the Puritan who first colonized this land. For example, here are excerpts from Roger Williams's treatise on the subject of separation of Church and State (emphasis added):

THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION
Roger Williams (July 15, 1644)

First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.

Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.

Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor president for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.

Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).

Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile....

TRUTH. I acknowledge that to molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for either professing doctrine, or practicing worship merely religious or spiritual, it is to persecute him, and such a person (whatever his doctrine or practice be, true or false) suffereth persecution for conscience.

...[S]hine enemies, though they speak and rail against thee, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill thy faithful witnesses, yet how is all vermilion'd o'er for justice against the heretics? Yea, if they kindle coals, and blow the flames of devouring wars, that leave neither spiritual nor civil state, but burn up branch and root, yet how do all pretend an holy war? He that kills, and he that's killed, they both cry out: "It is for God, and for their conscience."

'Tis true, nor one nor other seldom dare to plead the mighty Prince Christ Jesus for their author, yet (both Protestant and Papist) pretend they have spoke with Moses and the Prophets who all, say they (before Christ came), allowed such holy persecutions, holy wars against the enemies of holy church.

TRUTH. Dear PEACE (to ease thy first complaint), 'tis true, thy dearest sons, most like their mother, peacekeeping, peacemaking sons of God, have borne and still must bear the blurs of troublers of Israel, and turners of the world upside down. And 'tis true again, what Solomon once spake: "The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water, therefore (saith he) leave off contention before it be meddled with. This caveat should keep the banks and sluices firm and strong, that strife, like a breach of waters, break not in upon the sons of men."

Yet strife must be distinguished: It is necessary or unnecessary, godly or Ungodly, Christian or unchristian, etc.

It is unnecessary, unlawful, dishonorable, ungodly, unchristian, in most cases in the world, for there is a possibility of keeping sweet peace in most cases, and, if it be possible, it is the express command of God that peace be kept (Rom. 13).

Again, it is necessary, honorable, godly, etc., with civil and earthly weapons to defend the innocent and to rescue the oppressed from the violent paws and jaws of oppressing persecuting Nimrods (Psal. 73; Job 29).

It is as necessary, yea more honorable, godly, and Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and spiritual artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of Jesus, once delivered to the saints against all opposers, and the gates of earth and hell, men or devils, yea against Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, if he bring any other faith or doctrine....

PEACE. I add that a civil sword (as woeful experience in all ages has proved) is so far from bringing or helping forward an opposite in religion to repentance that magistrates sin grievously against the work of God and blood of souls by such proceedings. Because as (commonly) the sufferings of false and antichristian teachers harden their followers, who being blind, by this means are occasioned to tumble into the ditch of hell after their blind leaders, with more inflamed zeal of lying confidence. So, secondly, violence and a sword of steel begets such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they conclude (as indeed that religion cannot be true which needs such instruments of violence to uphold it so) that persecutors are far from soft and gentle commiseration of the blindness of others....

For (to keep to the similitude which the Spirit useth, for instance) to batter down a stronghold, high wall, fort, tower, or castle, men bring not a first and second admonition, and after obstinacy, excommunication, which are spiritual weapons concerning them that be in the church: nor exhortation to repent and be baptized, to believe in the Lord Jesus, etc., which are proper weapons to them that be without, etc. But to take a stronghold, men bring cannons, culverins, saker, bullets, powder, muskets, swords, pikes, etc., and these to this end are weapons effectual and proportionable.

On the other side, to batter down idolatry, false worship, heresy, schism, blindness, hardness, out of the soul and spirit, it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring those weapons which are used by persecutors, stocks, whips, prisons, swords, gibbets, stakes, etc. (where these seem to prevail with some cities or kingdoms, a stronger force sets up again, what a weaker pull'd down), but against these spiritual strongholds in the souls of men, spiritual artillery and weapons are proper, which are mighty through God to subdue and bring under the very thought to obedience, or else to bind fast the soul with chains of darkness, and lock it up in the prison of unbelief and hardness to eternity....

*snip*

TRUTH. I answer, in granting with Brentius that man hath not power to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows such his tenent and practice as restrain men from their worship, according to their conscience and belief, and constrain them to such worships (though it be out of a pretense that they are convinced) which their own souls tell them they have no satisfaction nor faith in.

Secondly, whereas he affirms that men may make laws to see the laws of God observed.

I answer, God needeth not the help of a material sword of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience, to those men, those magistrates, yea that commonwealth which makes such magistrates, must needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to fit judge and to determine in all the great controversies concerning doctrine, discipline, government, etc.

And then I ask whether upon this ground it must not evidently follow that:

Either there is no lawful commonw earth nor civil state of men in the world, which is not qualified with this spiritual discerning (and then also that the very commonweal hath more light concerning the church of Christ than the church itself).

Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof must judge and punish as they are persuaded in their own belief and conscience (be their conscience paganish, Turkish, or antichristian) what is this but to confound heaven and earth together, and not only to take away the being of Christianity out of the world, but to take away all civility, and the world out of the world, and to lay all upon heaps of confusion? . ..

*snip*

So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of setting up the form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power (though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents, or masters; or by taking up arms against their magistrates, though he persecute them for conscience: for though members of churches who are public officers also of the civil state may suppress by force the violence of usurpers, as Iehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do not as members of the church but as officers of the civil state.

TRUTH. Here are divers considerable passages which I shall briefly examine, so far as concerns our controversy.

First, whereas they say that the civil power may erect and establish what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, I acknowledge the proposition to be most true, both in itself and also considered with the end of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of God, to conserve the civil peace of people, so far as concerns their bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.

But from this grant I infer (as before hath been touched) that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people (whom they must needs mean by the civil power distinct from the government set up). And, if so, that a people may erect and establish what form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition; it is evident that such governments as are by them erected and established have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with. This is clear not only in reason but in the experience of all commonweals, where the people are not deprived of their natural freedom by the power of tyrants.

And, if so, that the magistrates receive their power of governing the church from the people, undeniably it follows that a people, as a people, naturally consider (of what nature or nation soever in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America), have fundamentally and originally, as men, a power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her, to redress, reform, establish, etc. And if this be not to pull God and Christ and Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge....

PEACE. Some will here ask: What may the magistrate then lawfully do with his civil horn or power in matters of religion?

TRUTH. His horn not being the horn of that unicorn or rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in spiritual cases, his sword not the two-edged sword of the spirit, the word of God (hanging not about the loins or side, but at the lips. and proceeding out of the mouth of his ministers) but of an humane and civil nature and constitution, it must consequently be of a humane and civil operation, for who knows not that operation follows constitution; And therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:

The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul; or else that and those which he is persuaded are false.

Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it:

First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, according to Isa. 49, and Revel. 21, with a tender respect of truth, and the professors of it.

Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.

Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates from violence and injury, according to Rom. 13.

Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes:

First, permission (for approbation he owes not what is evil) and this according to Matthew 13. 30 for public peace and quiet's sake.

Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any....

...The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace.

Amen.

[The Cat-Tribe]

l944 - US VS BALLARD
Ballard arrested for using US mail to obtain money under false pretenses.
Ballard - his own church I AM MOVEMENT
He had been "selected" by divine messenger
He was told to solicit money to carry out God's work.
Men may believe what we can't prove.
Do we need to prove his vision?
Does it matter if incident is real or not?
What if he is an actual Catholic priest?
What is religion? Should Court define it?
What is danger here?
May a single person establish his own religion?
Does his church need guidelines such as services?
(Supreme Court - legal)

l976 - SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX DIOCESE VS. MILIVOJEVICH
Milivojevich - Bishop - fired without cause, appealed case on grounds fired unjustly. (Supreme Court - this is strictly a church matter).

l879 - REYNOLDS VS US.
Mormon practice of polygamy based on religious practice. (Supreme Court says no.)

l934 - HAMILTON VS REGENTS OF U OF CALIFORNIA
Methodist-Episcopal church - religious beliefs forbid military training. State law requires course in Military Science/Training Tactic. Legal state law? (Supreme Court - No)

l963 - SHERBERT VS VERNER
7th Day Adventist fined for refusal to work on Saturday - denied unemployment compensation. (Supreme - ruling stands, can't change system)

clear things up?

No. WTF are these "citations" supposed to prove?

[The Cat-Tribe]

no theyre not.

14th ammendment, eh?

The Fourteenth Amendment argument is bull, and the interpretation thereof is also bull; establishment of a state or local religion in no way necessarily depriving anyone of anything (without due process) and is in no way depriving anyone of equal representation of law. It's such a fallacy, that, frankly, I don't even understand.

Yes, I agree ... you don't understand in the slightest.