57% Of Republicans Want Christianity As National Religion

[Jaselvania]

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.

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).

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

...fileting his skin off and then burning him alive?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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).

Well you don't have to agree with the SCOTUS, but thanks to Marbury v. Madison their decision is binding, and railing against it is pretty much fruitless. That being said the Supreme Court isn't truly a final authority as it will always have to answer to future iterations of itself.

Case in point, Dread Scott and Brown vs Board of education.

[Dyakovo]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

[Norstal]

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).

It was Constitutional. It isn't anymore. This isn't difficult to comprehend. And just because it is Constitutional doesn't mean it's morally right. It was constitutional to ban alcohol. Now it isn't anymore. It's the same damn thing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

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.

[Dyakovo]

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....

Because he's a partisan hack?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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

Because he's a partisan hack?

And Ginsberg is soo impartial.

[Risottia]

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

All nations are lesbians.

Girl on girl is hawt.

[Yuketobaniac]

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]

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.

England is primarily Anglican....

[Risottia]

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....

Because he's a jerkass who uses his rather huge knowledge of jurisprudence and dialectics to further his own partisan point of view.

[Jaselvania]

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.

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."

[Insaeldor]

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.

[Risottia]

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 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.

"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."

Are those words written in the Constitution, or is that your or somebody else's interpretation?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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."

Except it does matter. It will be interpreted because the SCOTUS has that authority. In fact they used that authority to give itself that authority.

[Jaselvania]

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.

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

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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 . . .

they do.

[Kelinfort]

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."

Then read the Establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

[Fartsniffage]

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.

It kinda doesn't. Judicial Review came later.

[Insaeldor]

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.

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?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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?

Cause literally 90% of this thread is arguing about why what you said isn't true.