Screw the Government

[ek forever]

I know thats how its supposed to work, but thats not whats happening

Well not shit it isn't happening because businesses are still taxes and regulations are being pumped out every day. When do you think it's going to happen? It won't until these market distortions leave the market.

I can tell you've never read the constitution before. Particularly the first amendment, and particularly the establishment clause. No, the text "separation of church and state" doesn't appear here, but it is implied, seeing as how it was written by secularists. You should research more into this issue, you'll see why you dont want someone in office proselytizing and making laws based on their faith and not on rational thought

I'm a political science major. I've taken constitutional law. I've read the constitution many times and keep a copy in my glove box and another in my book bag.

The text reads:

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.

Now where does it say you can't have religion in government? Prayer at public meetings?

You clearly haven't read a history book. Jefferson simply stated that the Federal Government would not 'interfere' with the church. No where did he say there was separation of church and state. In fact Jefferson regularly attended church at the Capital Building and it was used as a church even before the Capital was used by congress!!!

The Library of Congress provides an account of one of those churches that met weekly at the Capitol: "Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 Chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary.

I'll go further to elaborate, and by doing this you'll probably ignore everything I posted before this, that Jefferson can be quoted from a letter:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the, "wall of separation of church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."

The key here is to remember the times. Why did this matter at all to the founders? Remember that Britain had spilled the lives of tens of millions of foreigners and even it's own people over the past half-millennium. All due to the fact that the church ruled the state. The church had a grip on the executive and the legislature. This is why they called for a "separation" of the establishment of religion in the government. They never said you can't have invocation prior to a government meeting, etc. Or that no public official can have a religion or some other extreme. When calling for a "wall between church and state" he means the establishment of either. No religion gets special treatment or favors. Modern minds read old text very poorly and take it out of context. Reading the federalist papers would do a lot for your understanding of this countries founding. Hell, now you can even buy it in modernized english. I've read them in the old text, and it's tough, but very legible. Just goes to show how brilliant people were a few hundred years ago. No one writes with the level of intelligencia that Washington and Madison did anymore.

What the architects of the 1st Amendment had in mind was the English civil war a few generations earlier when English society was torn apart over a three way struggle between Catholicism, Anglicism and Calvinism. The issues of King and Parliament could have been resolved with minimal bloodshed, but when the issue became how much the government should support which religion it became an intractable bloodbath. What the founders recognized is that when the government takes sides on religion it eliminates the ability for people to make the compromises needed in a free society.

Edit: If you haven't read Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography you should. It's a very moving book.

[ahabion]

The chance of a CEO or business pocketing the extra income is almost an absolute certainty. Especially in this day in age where everyone is looking for the fast buck. What are you gonna do when youre store is folding up? You're not gonna hire more people, youre not gonna buy more raw material. You're gonna use that money to stay afloat. And Rubio? He's an evangelical Protestant Christian. The absolute last thing you need in the white house is someone trying to erase that part of the constitution that separates church and state.

The separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state... not the state from the church... *history*

and isn't Obama already doing that with the United States and the Constitution? Just bypassing the one founding document that this whole country is grounded on...

[.blank cd]

In a letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

In the Treaty of Tripoli, John Adams, another founding father, wrote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

And yes, I know its context of the Barbary War

No one said anything about prayer before public meetings, although I would rather it be kept to a moment of silence. My discourse is with elected officials making a mess of rational situations with their irrational decisions. I need someone in office who is gonna say "OK, a=b and a=c, so therefore b=c" not "hmmmm, what would you do, god?" The latter is absolutely terrifying to me. Case in point, the stripping of rights of the LBGT community.

The separation of church and state is to protect the church from the state... not the state from the church... *history*.

[citation needed]

You got it a little backwards, but ok.

[ek forever]

I don't think anyone is logically thinking that "god" will be directing government officials through their prayers. I can't think of anyone campaigning as "god's politician" I think this is all blown out of proportion over the clear religious oppression that Christians face compared to other religious sects.

There is a lot of hyperbole over something I consider to be quite personal and a core fabric of many peoples lives regardless of their religions. There are much bigger issues at hand. I consider myself a christian, but I don't attend church more than 4-5 times per year and pray to myself in private at home. I view this religious nonsense as political distraction. Part of it may be that logical arguments can't be made by some people so they must submit to making ad-hominem attacks or attacking someones personal life because they can't logically argue their stance.

[bu villain]

First of all, I don't have any problem with a politician being religious and acting as such. However, I think your claim that Christianity is oppressed in America is a little rediculous. A small minority of people complaining about a politician's prayer meeting is not oppression! In this country, the government, private industry, and the population as a whole are dominated by Christians. As long as Christians hold a majority of positions of authority in this country, then by definition, they can not be oppressed except by themselves.

[ek forever]

Oppressed was the wrong word. However you know exactly what I mean. There is plenty of religious demonization in the media. My point was simply that there are much larger fish to fry. Especially on the national level where very little social issues are dealt with.

[.blank cd]

Yeah, Christians are just feeling threatened because they're in danger of losing their spot as the majority. It's about 70/30 now. I give it 20-25 years and Ill bet money that'll change to 49/51 at the very least. 30 years we'll see an out of the closet Atheist president.

[BanginJimmy]

Case in point, the stripping of rights of the LBGT community.

Though I agree with what you are alluding to, no one's rights have been stripped by anyone. If anything the LGBT has more rights than heterosexuals.

[BanginJimmy]

First of all, I don't have any problem with a politician being religious and acting as such. However, I think your claim that Christianity is oppressed in America is a little rediculous. A small minority of people complaining about a politician's prayer meeting is not oppression! In this country, the government, private industry, and the population as a whole are dominated by Christians. As long as Christians hold a majority of positions of authority in this country, then by definition, they can not be oppressed except by themselves.

Christian's arent being oppressed, but christian views are, even from self described christians. From Obama's "clinging to their guns and religion" line to everyone on the right being attacked like being a christian is bad. It is also done in more subtle ways. Look at the way the bomber in Norway was described, and the way Major Hasan as described by the press. No mention of Hasan's religion but nearly every article about the Norway bomber mentioned his religion.

[.blank cd]

Though I agree with what you are alluding to, no one's rights have been stripped by anyone. If anything the LGBT has more rights than heterosexuals.

You could say they have all the rights of heterosexuals, except the right to get married

[BanginJimmy]

You could say they have all the rights of heterosexuals, except the right to get married

That is not a right.

I agree with you though. The first time a state passed a same sex marriage law, this needed to go to the SC because of the obvious conflict with Article IV section 1 of the Constitution.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the familiar name used to refer to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, which addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court, there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments. Judgments are generally entitled to greater respect than laws, in other states.

[ek forever]

Indeed, getting married isn't a "right." Neither is healthcare, or housing. You do have a right to your health. But not the goods and services produced by someone else.

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.

[bu villain]

I agree Christians get attacked more now than they ever have in the past (much of which I don't agree with) but they got a long way to go before they get on the same level as other religions. It's just hard to listen to a majority group that holds that vast majority of power in this country play the victim card.

[bu villain]

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.

Agreed! With a 50% divorce rate, I don't see marriages really doing much for the stability of modern society.

[.blank cd]

Indeed, getting married isn't a "right." Neither is healthcare, or housing. You do have a right to your health. But not the goods and services produced by someone else.

I don't think the government should decide who does and doesn't get married. There shouldn't be any financial benefits to being married from the public sector. Period. If a private insurance company wants to offer discounts for married couples that's their prerogative as a private company making that decision.

Careful how you word this. 50-60 years ago, my parents didn't have a "right" to sit wherever they wanted to on a bus, or piss in the same toilet, or eat at the same restaurants, and before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same exact thing. It is a "right". They're called civil "rights". Carry on

[greasemunkey]

the house is electing 4 dem and 4 rep to determine a way to cut actual costs that the government has in its millions of programs. If they don't come to a conclusion, which is a possibility, THEN they will cut it from our social security and defense programs. if these cuts dont happen, we keep printing money to pay off debt that becomes worth nothing. Guns and gold will be what pays for things. I say they cut revenue supplied to almost all programs by a small percentage, roads will still get paved, water will still be supplied, yadda yadda we are paying for retiree's that make 100k a year for the rest of their life for doing nothing and over manned gov't programs. We don't need 3 people working the jack hammer....or 2 guys driving the water truck doing a one man job..i say cut them all down.

[ek forever]

Careful how you word this. 50-60 years ago, my parents didn't have a "right" to sit wherever they wanted to on a bus, or piss in the same toilet, or eat at the same restaurants, and before you say it's not the same thing, it is the same exact thing. It is a "right". They're called civil "rights". Carry on

There are also "legal" rights, want to open that can of worms? We're discussing fundamental rights and you totally took it in an off-the-wall direction. You make it sound like I'm abdicating such things. What happened was surely wrong, but no one has a "right" to be on a bus. No one has a "right" to piss in a toilet.

A private individual who owns a private business and funds it with his own money and his own work should be able to allow whomever he wants to in his restaurant. I do agree that if you pay taxes you should have all have equal access to public facilities. But if I open a business with my money I should allow into the premises whom I please. The same goes for every private business. If you don't want to sell your good or service to a certain person or persons, you shouldn't have to.

[BanginJimmy]

the house is electing 4 dem and 4 rep to determine a way to cut actual costs that the government has in its millions of programs.

Wrong, its a total of 12 members of congress. 3 Dem and 3 GOP from both houses.






If they don't come to a conclusion, which is a possibility, THEN they will cut it from our social security and defense programs. if these cuts dont happen, we keep printing money to pay off debt that becomes worth nothing. Guns and gold will be what pays for things. I say they cut revenue supplied to almost all programs by a small percentage, roads will still get paved, water will still be supplied, yadda yadda we are paying for retiree's that make 100k a year for the rest of their life for doing nothing and over manned gov't programs. We don't need 3 people working the jack hammer....or 2 guys driving the water truck doing a one man job..i say cut them all down.[/QUOTE]