The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2013, 12:08 PM   #26
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.
You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:09 PM   #27
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Do youthink gerrymandering to maximize votes is cheating?
Yes, when it leads to Republicans winning elections instead of Democrats.

That's the only consistency you'll find here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:12 PM   #28
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
It's a selective process.

'Ignoring' works for 'separation of church and state,' but it is by the book for the second amendment.
The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:18 PM   #29
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Yep, a republic in which the framing document specifies that the chief executive is elected not by the people, but by the states, hence the concept of each state casting all or nothing votes.
Wrong answer. The Constitution gives the States the power to select Electors to the Electoral College in a process freely decided by each State's government. It makes no stipulation on who those electors should be or how they should vote.

It's impossible that the framers had in mind a winning-party-takes-all mandate since they had no parties in mind when they designed the Electoral College. Like most things, they intended to leave the details up to each state.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:24 PM   #30
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
The concept of seperation of church and state is John Locke and thought highly of by Thomas Jefferson. It was penned by Jefferson in some letter or article he wrote in a religious newspaper, or to a church something like that.
Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 01-25-2013 at 12:31 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:37 PM   #31
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You do realize only one of the two is actually written in the Constitution.
Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.

Quote:
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:45 PM   #32
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Of course, but I was responding to 'intent.'

My point was that one is loosely interpreted, whereas the other is by the book.
You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:47 PM   #33
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Ironically it was written to a Baptist Minister in the spirit that his Church was off limits to government meddling. The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church. Exactly the opposite conclusion from what the modern progressive professional re-interpreters like to take away.

I always thought if I were a history teacher, I'd require all my students to read the Danbury Baptist letter so students could see the context as it was intended. There'd be more that a few people out there who would complain that reading that very same letter in public school was a violation of their modern SOCAS construction.

Long story short, they only want you to remember 5 words out of that letter.
This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.

Quote:
Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sep...rch-and-state/

Last edited by DenverBrit; 01-25-2013 at 12:56 PM..
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:55 PM   #34
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You're saying an off-the-cuff line in a friendly letter should be as strictly interpreted as language that was written into and ratified as part of the Constitution? Should we do this with everything Jefferson wrote? That could get fun.
Did you read the supreme court interpretations I included?
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 12:56 PM   #35
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
This nicely illustrates my point.

The first amendment is 'loosely,' or incorrectly, interpreted, whereas the second amendment is by the book.



[/URL]
It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:09 PM   #36
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,665

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:10 PM   #37
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It's not quite that simple. The wording of the actual ratified 1st Amendment is not 100% in line with the way many people like to interpret SOCAS. There are many who seek to use SOCAS as a means to banish the Church from the public square. But in the spirit of "Free exercise thereof" that's a much harder argument to make.

There's a large contingent out there who would rather just replace in the national conscience what the 1st Amendment actually says about freedom of religion with 5 words Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter.
My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:24 PM   #38
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Here's the part where Beavis is proved almost ridiculously wrong, so instead of admitting it, he pretends the argument was about something else.
I'm sorry did you make a point somewhere? I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan. Or how upholding a 200 year old Senate tradition is cheating.

Please enlighten me.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:24 PM   #39
frerottenextelway
█████
 
frerottenextelway's Avatar
 
█████

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: █████
Posts: 8,374

Adopt-a-Bronco:
██
Default

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...5th-of-popular

"....Obama would have received almost exactly 3/5 of the electoral vote compared to their actual population -- 30.7 percent of the electoral vote over 51 percent of the popular vote. The coincidence recalls one of American history's -- and especially Virginia's -- most infamous numbers, the three-fifths compromise that counted slaves as a fraction of a person when calculating a state's federal representation."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive...Micah+Marshall)

"Another way of looking at this is that the new system makes the votes of whites count for much more than non-whites — which is a helpful thing if you’re overwhelmingly dependent on white votes in a country that is increasingly non-white."

I'm shocked that Cutt supports it!!!
frerottenextelway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:33 PM   #40
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'

I understand that the religious right want to interpret it only as 'freedom of,' but according to the supreme court, that is not correct.
I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 01:57 PM   #41
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I'm sorry, but are you arguing that the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise clause out of the Constitution? I'm not sure what you're saying.
I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?

Quote:
Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."[2]
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:06 PM   #42
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I thought the rulings were self explanatory. What is it you don't understand?
How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:42 PM   #43
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
How does the "clause against establishment of religion by law" have any impact on the Free Exercise Clause?

I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

Quote:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Your comment:
Quote:
The "Wall of Separation" was meant to protect the Church from the threat of Government more than to protect the Government from the Church.
My later comment.
Quote:
My understanding has always been that the intent was 'freedom of and from religion, without bias.'
A quote I used.
Quote:
Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.
With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 02:52 PM   #44
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I'm not sure where your trying to go, so I'll simply restate what I have already commented on.
And if you are going to use Free Exercise, you must also include the Establishment Clause:

With or without the Supreme Court, it seems straightforward.
I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:05 PM   #45
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,210

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Both have the same effect: Giving a minority the power to win what they did not earn and both ignoring the will of the people.
Here's a newsflash, neither side gives a damn about the will of the people.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:11 PM   #46
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I'm honestly not sure what we're even arguing. Guessing it might have to do with your mention of freedom "from" religion. And if it is, that's a non-starter.

Freedom of religion does not imply freedom from religion any more than freedom of speech means freedom FROM speech.

In a free society, you'll be constantly burdened with the opinions and beliefs of others, whether you agree with them or not.
That's your opinion, mine is different.
DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 03:34 PM   #47
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
That's your opinion, mine is different.
In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/r...uidance.html#3

Quote:
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment requires public school officials to be neutral in their treatment of religion, showing neither favoritism toward nor hostility against religious expression such as prayer. [ 2 ] Accordingly, the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is sponsored by the government but protects religious activity that is initiated by private individuals, and the line between government-sponsored and privately initiated religious expression is vital to a proper understanding of the First Amendment's scope. As the Court has explained in several cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 01-25-2013 at 03:42 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 05:05 PM   #48
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.
At this time, it has greater protections, particularly for Protestant Christian speech.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 06:43 PM   #49
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
Say 'what' again, I dare you

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
I'm still waiting to hear how what's OK in Nebraska is cheating in Michigan.
I am too.
Arkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2013, 07:08 PM   #50
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,268

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
In what way? Banishment of religious speech in public? Of religious text or symbols?

So far the Courts have carefully maintained that Religious speech enjoys the same protections afforded any other.

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/r...uidance.html#3
I don't care about any of those issues.

This is what we should all be concerned about, Santorum et al and their belief in social interference.

DenverBrit is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:29 PM.


Denver Broncos