The Right Scoop
This is not found in the document itself, however it comes from a man who possessed a greater understanding of the Founder's intent than anyone here or (I would hazard to state) anyone living. Justice J. Story.
§ 992. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship. The entire document can be viewed here:
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_church_and_state.htm
If you mean to assume that I know less about the Bible than you thought I did, then you should say that instead of using the word "contrary" to describe someone, which by definition has nothing to do with someone's knowledge but describes an opposing view, position or approach to doing something differing from the "norm". Can I quote chapter and verse off the top of my head from anywhere in any version of the Bible,no, and I don't know anyone that can do that although I know a few that are fairly conversant in their chosen version. But I am pretty familiar with comparative theology, and in how the different versions of the text affect the dogmas and or tenets of a given faith. My point was that the "different versions" of the Bible through the differences in translation, language (wording) used lead to differing, sometimes wildly differing, interpretations and there by producing friction between the various Sects of Christianity. My understanding of the Bible may differ from yours (it obviously does) but I think you misunderstood the point I was driving at by using the "Mysteries" as an example, I understand that "Faith" as a whole is much broader than just accepting that what are deemed "Mysteries" or the unexplainable as just how things are or that it is all a part of God's grand plan. My peculiar circumstance in regards to where I stand by the Doctrines or Dogma of my Catholic faith places me (or my soul if you prefer) in a rather "unique" (the only word that comes to mind at the moment) if not precarious position. You see I was raised in the "Roman" or "Latin" tradition of Catholicism and because of certain actions on my part, I am "stained" so to speak. I am in sort of a "living purgatory" or "outside of God's grace", I cannot receive the Sacraments of Confession or Communion,nor am I permitted to attend High Mass, although I am permitted Last Rites when that time comes. It does give one a sense of what the members of the Militant Orders had to deal with and that sense of "kinship" does provide some solace. Which brings me back to how I look at the versions of the Bible through a somewhat different lens and understanding than you do, you see my interest is to find the oldest and there by purest form of the scriptures, those without the editing of those who had personal and less than honorable intentions to promote their interpretation as the definitive form of God's message. I do subscribe to the view that man is flawed and therefore anything he touches or creates is so as well, and by that line of thought the versions/variations of the scriptures are likewise flawed, exponentially by the number of times it has been rewritten. Hope that clears it up somewhat.
No, that is what you are discussing, I am discussing the proper role of government.
Now if you want to talk about the constitutionality of it, then you are correct there is nothing unconstitutional about a state/local government banning gambling or prostitution, but that still does not change the fact that it is not the proper role of government to do so.
However I will also add that many many many state constitutions have STRONGER protections for personal liberty than the federal constitution, many people overlook and ignore the state constitutions, for good reason since most of the state courts and certainly the federal courts ignore them, I bet ALOT of people do not even realize their individual state has its own governing constitution.
I agree with him even, if we talk in the sense you mention. But we don't, and we must do everything we can to preserve traditional marriages and families.
I agree with him even, if we talk in the sense you mention. But we don't, and we must do everything we can to preserve traditional marriages and families.
No let me educate you, Child Tax CREDITS are a subsidy, and are in fact a direct transfer.
Tax cuts are not, unless you cut one segment of the population only to increase the tax burden on another, eke progressive taxation then it can be a form of wealth redistribution which is a defacto subsidy.
No let me educate you, Child Tax CREDITS are a subsidy, and are in fact a direct transfer.
Tax cuts are not, unless you cut one segment of the population only to increase the tax burden on another, eke progressive taxation then it can be a form of wealth redistribution which is a defacto subsidy.
I lived and worked in Las Vegas as a personal security contractor,yes I am aware of the limits of what is permitted under law, you have to be because VIPs and celebrities often forget that laws apply to them. We were required at the time to take what amounted to a 100 hour crash course in relevant state and local laws as part of our certification (along with evasive driving, firearms etc). There was more than one time we had to preempt a VIP's poor exercise of discretion.
"Which Bible" may be simple but it's a valid question as each version contains different language that can be interpreted differently by individuals, which is why we have differing dogmas within Christianity itself. As we are all aware these differences have often led to very violent disagreements all through our history. Ortho is an Orthodox (I'm sure you know this) I am a Catholic, while our faiths are in many ways very similar there are stark differences in them as well, however our faiths use different versions of the Bible just as the Protestant faiths use yet another. I am aware of what Jefferson was struggling with and exactly what he was doing with his Bible, I've struggled with many of those same issues, they call them "Mysteries" in the Catholic church and they are mysteries because no one can satisfactorily answer them. But that's a big reason they call it faith is it not? As to playing at being "contrary", well that's because I have a contrary mind that questions things all the time and I find it quite useful for learning, whether it's drawing out someone to get a better idea of their position as well as finding out just how entrenched or committed they are about it in a debate or discussion. It served me well while I was in school by challenging my teachers to step up and make a convincing case for what they were proposing as "fact". It also serves well to rattle trolls too.
Now your into collectivism, where the good of the community is more important than the good of the individual. In your vision that means a Man/Woman family, what if the good of the community means no fat people, do you force everyone to diet? What if the "society" says that meat is bad, do you force vegetarianism on everyone?
This is where conservative fail the test as protectors of liberty. The good of the community or society NEVER under any circumstance should outweigh the rights of the individual. period.
1 Income married couples should not get a tax advantage over 1 income unmarried couples or single people that have the same number of dependents to take care of or that dont. If you choose to have a child dont ask me to pay for it, personally I disagree with EIC, Head of Household, and other deductions and credits for people that have children, why should someone who choose not the have children be penalized for it??
There was never really a Tax Penalty either, Couple could select to File Jointly, under the higher income tax brackets, or separately under the single filers tax brackets, depending on much the couple combined made that year, Giving the married couple an extreme tax advantage esp in 1 ot 1.5 income households over unmarried couples or single people
First off even if I had a dream goal of no taxation, which will never happen, it would not be a contradiction to end the tax break a married couple gets over a single person, Income is income and the rate by which you are taxed should not have any relation to your relationship status.
I also advocate for the Flat and/or Fair tax, that does not mean I think Taxation is not theft it merely means that I understand that it is impossible to get rid of federal taxation thus I am pushing for the most libertarian form of taxation that I can get.
My only concern it how government and law impede upon liberty, you have a personal belief that marriage is for the "family" and that a "family" must be a Mother, a Father and Children. For the most part I agree with that definition, HOWEVER I do not believe the government or law should force either of our beliefs on to anyone else, if another group of people want to define family as 2 men living together it is not my place to tell them otherwise since it does not directly harm me or my property
I'm saying hypothetically should we overturn it and give the rights back to the states, we could have states legalizing it again. I'd rather overturn Roe vs. Wade and then completely ban it.
The other argument, one that I support as well, is to do away with the legal institution of marriage. No Tax Breaks for Married People, Insurance companies choose how they define "family" coverage, not applying to the government for permission to take a vow to another person. Marriage would then be between you, your god, your church (if you have one), and your partner.
How very statist of you
Let me guess you support ObamaCare because the Insurance companies are evil and must be controlled
In a capitalist society I freely associate with a company based on their price, service and value they provide me, not because some government tells me to
That is the statist view, that with out government intervention the "evil companies" will destory everything we believe in.
The fact is the companies will reflect what their CUSTOMERS demand, if that demand is less cost no family coverage then that will be what they offer, if their customers DEMAND family coverage then that is what they will offer.
Let the MARKET not government choose what products are sold
You're officially an idiot. I don't support ObamaCare so GTFO.
The point is if you do away with the complete legal institution of marriage, as you said, the companies get to decide what they can do. Therefore, you'll end up with probably all but a very slim few companies no longer giving married families the benefits they can use. That's just one more step down the Liberal road to destroying the family.
No your blurring Religious and Moral ideologies with the rule of law.
under the basis of LAW marriage is a contract/partnership, only slightly more complex then a business partnership, and that is how it SHOULD BE under LAW.
Now if your church or religion says that is can be only a man and women, and must be for life or you can have a "Catholic" marriage I have no problems with that.
There is and should be what is permissible by the government and what is permissible by the free association of individuals,
@rjcylon - People like you just like to hide in the weeds and throw stones. Run for office yourself, see if you can hook up with acorn like Obama and get in.
@rjcylon - People like you just like to hide in the weeds and throw stones. Run for office yourself, see if you can hook up with acorn like Obama and get in.
Many people, who do not have Hero Worship, believe that Lincoln was attempting to be America's first Dictator and saw a way to use the slave issue to do it.
Lincoln was a devote racist and did not free the slave because he felt bad for the black man, infact Lincoln wanted to round all of them up and send them back to Africa.
"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land."
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...
Was homosexuality publicly reviled? Definitely. Were there homosexuals (or those who had engaged in sodomy) among the founding fathers? It's possible. The mocking images of aristocratic South Carolinians as "dandies" and "boy lovers" didn't come from nowhere mind you. And the Old Testament laws against sodomy probably didn't spring up because no one in the past was gay ever; but sometime--thousands of years in the future--some people would be openly.
Regardless, personal choices of the founding fathers have little bearing on current discussion of what a person has the RIGHT to do. In the colonial period, it was general law throughout American that what happened in private circumstances was not subject to the public law.
agree agree agree. it's sad that there are so many people in america who want to throw morals out the window and act like anyone can do whatever they want, it's a free-for-all, there are no rules! the states are not separate countries. all the states are together, the UNITED states of america. that means that if a state has a law that is way off base and crazy, (like what? use your imagination, the possibilities are endless) the federal government is allowed to control that. sheesh. some people are so hung up on the 10th amendment that they act like the federal government doesn't exist! and they act like morals and values do not exist either. let's just let every state do whatever the heck insane thing they want and act like 50 different countries!!!
Not at all I just hadnt read your last post...that's why I responded after your kind request not to respond. No thanks on the offer though. You don't even know what you don't know on that topic, and it's hard to dialogue with someone like that. haha. I'm happy to pass on your offer.
You clearly believe in objective truth! You're arguing that you're right and I'm wrong...Objectively. If you think you aren't correct in reality (ie, objectively) about your position, then why are you arguing for it so strongly?
"Ok, so through my subjective experience I'm having an objective experience at the same time? "
Wait...you disagree?? you don't think you're experiencing reality?
So let me get this straight...according to your own view, your view isn't true. is that right??
"My point has been that even if there were, hypothetically, an objective "truth", you, I, or anyone else would never have any access to it, because the experience of "objective" by beings that have an subjective experience is impossible. At best, "objective" is no better (or worse) than any sci-fi fantasy or tall tale. It's something many people believe in but cannot prove."
Moral law is not necessarily objective, but that is not necessarily a bad thing ... but ultimately what you said is correct. Ultimately it is whoever is most determined, or most influential who will influence others to think similarly. With humans involved there is no objectivity, like you said. It it up to each individual to take responsibility for themselves.
so you don't think things like child abuse or racism or discrimination against homosexuals is actually wrong??
Even if he did (and you both agreed), that doesn't mean it's "objectively wrong". It means there are two people agree that something is wrong.
Instead, if a person can be found who believes any of those things are not objectively wrong, your entirely argument fails.
My gosh man...look at your own sentence!
"You can't subjectively experience an objective truth."
Is that TRUE? How did you come to that conclusion...???
Here's the bottom line: if you're going to play the hard skeptic, then, to be consistent, you should be skeptical of your own skepticism. If you think nothing is objective simply because subjective experience is the basis for all conclusions, then consistency demands that you also be skeptical of that very conclusion. In other words, your own question is in this case unreliably formed and presented. You don't really seem to believe that, though, and I, not suggesting you do. Obviously you have political opinions that you believ to be objectively true...that's why you're here..right?
Right...through subjective experiences we discover objective truths about our world. Science itself is based upon the assumption that our noetic structures are reliable. It's pretty difficult to live our lives otherwise. It's most commonly accepted that we can say that we KNOW something if (1) we are justified in believing it is true and (2) the belief is actually true. Justified, True Beliefs = knowledge.
Well, by definition whatever is objectively true is true Independent of human thought or opinion. Are you asking how we can KNOW that something is objectively true?
The Problem with Santourm is there isn't enough Libertarianism in him to check his neo-con. His condition on the 10th Amendment reflects that. His 10th Amendment stance begins, and end with what he thinks is right and wrong. I'm not attracted to this guys character. Ol Abe may have saved the Union, but there was more to Abe than that. The Civil war....Boy, what a mess.
You're as smart as I am I'm sure! I've just studied in a different field I suppose.
Sure. which point?
Our forefathers basically implemented their religious beliefs into the Constitution. If there were no right or wrong then there would be no need for a government to uphold the laws of the land. Get owned sir.
There's nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there's more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn't be intertwined... Try reading the Constitution before telling people what's in it.
There's nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there's more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn't be intertwined... Try reading the Constitution before telling people what's in it.
There's nothing remotely religious in the Constitution. Though there's more than one section stating that religion and civil government shouldn't be intertwined... Try reading the Constitution before telling people what's in it.
Our forefathers basically implemented their religious beliefs into the Constitution. If there were no right or wrong then there would be no need for a government to uphold the laws of the land. Get owned sir.
Its just a rule of logic called modus tollens - denying the consequent of the hypothetical syllogism I presented in (1). Here, if the consequent of a true premise is denied, then the antecedent is also necessarily not true.
Well, since the 10th Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights," you're d a m n right, Rick! The whole point of the 10th was moral law! Christ Jesus help us all! AMEN and amen. Don't worry! Pitbull to the rescue!
p.s. See, I can be "arrogant" too! YOU BETCHA! OoraH! USA!!!!
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.