>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > The Oedipus Tex Classic Thread Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-19-2006, 07:37 PM   #151
Steve-o
TACOS
 
Steve-o's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: L-dot-A-dot
Posts: 26,313
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $164662
My Mood


Steve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Steve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Quote:
Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 08:06 PM
Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.
OK, you mean like the way Jefferson proposed this for the Virginia constitution?

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion."

But, what'd the father of the Constitution think?

Hey, James Madison, what about the states?

MR. MADISON: Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm
  Steve-o is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 07:38 PM   #152
player
Registered User
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 200
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $45000


player is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Re: If it weren't for religion

Quote:
Originally posted by aloyouis on 10-19-2006 at 01:21 AM
NOT! How can you try to talk about such an important issue whilst painting with a stupefying broad brush?


Lets see: Radical Muslims are religious and brainwashed so they kill each other (and everybody else) therefore all religious people are brainwashed?

Try this: You are a male and Hitler was a male therefore all males (including me) are murderous tyrants?

Please go back and read your post.... think for a moment...and repost.

He's actualy not that off...Not many people switch from the religion they were raised ...If your parents were Catholic, good chance you are Catholic..some would call that brainwashing. Most of the religious people I know, blindly follow their religion because it's what their parents did..and their parents before them, ect.
  player is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 08:06 PM   #153
freak
Registered User
 
freak's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NH
Posts: 2,255
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $71750


freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 01:33 AM
And the majority doesn't have its right to impose its will on the minority. We could go around and around on this.
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."

--James Madison

Do not mistake the Founders goal of protecting the minority, for a prohibition against majority rule.
__________________
Go 'Cats, beat Maine!
:Redsox: Believe.....2004.
Another week, another win.
Ummm, yeah......
Wake up the ghosts of the Gahden.
  freak is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 08:36 PM   #154
PatsDVD
Registered User
 
PatsDVD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 722
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10500


PatsDVD is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by dchester on 10-19-2006 at 08:25 PM
[B]One thing that I wish they'd have all students do, is once a year, have them actually read the Constitution, so people would know what was really in it.
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.
__________________
"I'm downhill like a hill in San Francisco with oil on it." -- Dillon 9/8/06
  PatsDVD is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:46 PM   #155
Steve-o
TACOS
 
Steve-o's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: L-dot-A-dot
Posts: 26,313
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $164662
My Mood


Steve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Steve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirateSteve-o is a zombie robot ninja pirate
Quote:
Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 09:06 PM
"The problem to be solved, is not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect: and here the general question must be between a republican government, in which the majority rule the minority, and a government in which a lesser number or the least number rule the majority."

--James Madison

Do not mistake the Founders goal of protecting the minority, for a prohibition against majority rule.
more James Madison:

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
  Steve-o is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:49 PM   #156
dchester
Snoop Dog
 
dchester's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wistah
Posts: 22,334
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $656486


dchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that good
dchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that gooddchester should plot to take over the world, they're that good
Quote:
Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.
While I might agree they'd be ignoring the last 50 or 60 years of Judicial decisions, I'd be curious what passage(s) in the Constitution you think they'd be ignoring.
________
volcano digital vaporizer
  dchester is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 09:54 PM   #157
SteelerFan87
Pittsburgh Awesomes Fan
 
SteelerFan87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 12,846
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $211650
My Mood


SteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendage
SteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendage
Quote:
Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.
No, because if that was the case it would be a prohibition of all religions, and that is totally unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong with teaching students about all the major religions equally. And it's certainly not 200 years of judicial decisions, because the whole "thou shall not speak of God in school" thing is a fairly recent thing. For most of this country's educational history, religion was required to be taught in schools. Most of the oldest and most prestigious colleges in the US started off as theology schools.
  SteelerFan87 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 12:23 AM   #158
Umfold
Starter
 
Umfold's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10500


Umfold is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-19-2006 at 05:36 PM
3. Perhaps the best way to settle the whole creation vs evolution debate would be to, when you get to the point where you're going to teach the kids about how we came to exist, you can spend a week or 2 giving them an overview of all the different theories. Say, "Most people believe in either Evolution or Creation", and then teach them what both of those are, and then say "here are some other ideas people have about this subject", and then you can teach them about the "we were dropped off on this planet by aliens" theory, or whatever.
Oh good lord. You don't believe in evolution?

You ever have a cold? You know why we can't get rid of the cold? Evolution.
A germ enters you body. The next time you get that germ, it's basically a different germ due to evolution, and your body has to come up with a new defense.

That's a horrible suggestion. Should we do that with every proven scientific fact? I don't think the kids would learn very much.
  Umfold is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 01:24 AM   #159
SteelerFan87
Pittsburgh Awesomes Fan
 
SteelerFan87's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 12,846
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $211650
My Mood


SteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendage
SteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendageSteelerFan87 has been touched by his noodly appendage
What? Where did I say I don't believe evolution? I do believe it makes sense, and unlike some people I don't think it necessarily contradicts creation. Like I said in an earlier post, it is entirely possible that creation describes who created life, and evolution describes how He did it.

And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment.
__________________
This Is the Site Where You Become A Zombie

MH91, DW27, ST21, EH63
Paul Sciullo, Stephen Mayhle, Eric Kelly



Quote:
Originally Posted by Annihilus View Post
SF87 is likely the most annoying and obtuse person on the planet.
  SteelerFan87 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 01:43 AM   #160
Umfold
Starter
 
Umfold's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10500


Umfold is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-20-2006 at 02:24 AM
What? Where did I say I don't believe evolution? I do believe it makes sense, and unlike some people I don't think it necessarily contradicts creation. Like I said in an earlier post, it is entirely possible that creation describes who created life, and evolution describes how He did it.

And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment.
Actually, I agree with you there. It doesn't have to contradict evolution.
But I just feel until god comes and tells us this or that, then anything being taught about god in school is wrong.

But as far as it being proven, it is a proven fact. That's why I gave the example of a cold germ.
There are shots and such that will kill, or help your body learn how to kill certain viruses. But they don't always kill them all. Some of the germs are mutations, and aren't the same as the original strain. Those mutations live on, because the antibodies aren't designed to kill them.
So, sometimes there are enough of the mutated germs left to start over as a whole new virus. That is observable evolution.

And on a larger scale, there are these certain birds that live on the Galapogos. When it rains a lot, the seeds they eat grew much larger. And some of the birds can't eat such big seeds with their small beaks, and they starve and die.
So if one year there is a lot of rain, the next year most of the birds will have large beaks. As only the large beaked young were able to survive.
Likewise, if there isn't a lot of rain, the smaller beaked birds have the advantage, and you'll see more of them the next year.

If it were to rain a lot for say, twenty years, then there would only be large beaked birds left. Or, if there was twenty years of little rain, you'd only see birds with small beaks.

Evolution is an observable scientific fact. And it is proven.
  Umfold is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 06:05 AM   #161
freak
Registered User
 
freak's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NH
Posts: 2,255
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $71750


freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.
Quote:
Originally posted by dchester on 10-19-2006 at 09:29 AM

The founding fathers did a lot, but rights for Minorities and Women isn't among them.
To be fair, many in the Constitutional Convention wanted the abolishment of slavery to be included in the new government.

Certain states, however, would never have approved that and the Constitution would have been DOA. South Carolina was a major dissenter to the abolishment of slavery, but perhaps more important was Virginia.

Although the Constitution only needed 9 states to ratify it to become the law of the land, the belief was that the new govt had no chance of surviving without NY and VA onboard.

They DID however put 2 measures in the Constitution to limit slavery.

These are the so-called "3/5 clause," and a tax on each new slave brought to the US.

Those who prefer to portray the Founders as racist, bigots, often point to the "3/5 clause." But the point was not that slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. The actual wording is:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The "3/5 clause" was solely an accounting device.....for determining how many representatives each state got, and how much taxes each state had to pay.

The southern states wanted it both ways; they considered slaves property, but also wanted them counted as persons, as this would boost their population. This, in turn, would increase the number of representatives in Congress from southern states.

The "3/5" clause was a way of artificially limiting the clout of the southern states.

The other limit comes from Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

This allows Congress to, starting in 1808, to abolish slavery. It also allows a tax of up to $10 per new slave brought to the US.

This, of course, places a bigger financial burden upon slave owning states. It also provided a 20 yr period for slavery to continue, during which it was hoped that the south would find a way to eliminate their dependence on slavery.

That it did not happen is another issue entirely.
__________________
Go 'Cats, beat Maine!
:Redsox: Believe.....2004.
Another week, another win.
Ummm, yeah......
Wake up the ghosts of the Gahden.
  freak is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 06:47 AM   #162
RavenZ
unicorns and showponies
 
RavenZ's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: right here
Posts: 13,046
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $165380
My Mood


RavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendage
RavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendageRavenZ has been touched by his noodly appendage
Quote:
Originally posted by freak on 10-19-2006 at 08:06 PM
Actually, those "guys in the funny hats who had a tea party and fought the British" preferred that such matters be handled by the individual States.

The 1st Amendment merely restricted the Federal Govt.

If the States wanted to name a "state religion," or require prayer in schools, then so be it.

That is, if you want to be accurate about it.
Article VI:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
  RavenZ is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 07:41 AM   #163
freak
Registered User
 
freak's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NH
Posts: 2,255
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $71750


freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve-o on 10-19-2006 at 08:37 PM
OK, you mean like the way Jefferson proposed this for the Virginia constitution?

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion."
In other words........

1. Everybody has the right to their opinions on religion.

2. Nobody can be forced to go to church

The mistake you're making, is that you're confusing the Federal govt for the states.

The fact that Jefferson ALSO wanted religious freedom, and no established Church in VA, is IRRELEVANT to the point.

In fact, your quote simply proves my point.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the CONGRESS.

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the Federal govt to the States, so long as the Constitution does not prohibit it to the States. And religion falls into that category.

Now, proposing the STATE constitution, Jefferson also prefers a similar prohibition upon the VA govt.

The premise holds.....this was a matter for each STATE to decide in the minds of the Founders.

Quote:
MR. MADISON: Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).
I would first suggest that you not rely on a separationist website to prove your point.

Secondly, and related to the above, I would suggest that you read the ACTUAL document from which that was taken before putting it forth in your argument.

Now, on to that excerpt......

Madison was NOT talking about the 1st Amendment, or ANYTHING relating to the so-called "separation of church/state."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=393

The excerpt you posted was about a debate over a proposed amendment, which stated:

Article 1, section 10, between the first and second paragraph, insert "no State shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.

Quote:
But, what'd the father of the Constitution think?
Yes, what did Mr. Madison think?

Just 2 days before the debate that your excerpt came from, the committee DID debate the proposed amendment that ultimately became the 1st Amendment. And they DID discuss the religious aspect.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=380

Before we begin, here was the original proposed amendment:

Article I. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

Now, the highlights........

Mr. Sylvester had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether.

Mr. Gerry said it would read better if it was, that no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. Sherman thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.

Sometimes the Founders WERE a tad naive. Madison himself was guilty of this in his defense of the "general welfare" clause in the Federalist Papers.

Anyhoo, Madison now makes his opinion known:

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and might establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. Madison quite clearly believes the purpose of the amendment was to prevent the establishment of a national religion.

The amendment was proposed because many felt that the "necessary and proper" clause could allow Congress to make such a law. The amendment was intended to prevent that.

Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely harmful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it. The ministers of their congregations to the Eastward were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting- houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by by-laws. If an action was brought before a Federal Court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or building places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

He agrees with the "gentleman from Virginia"......ie Madison.

He goes on to state that the proposed wording might be misinterpreted, so much so that even supporting ministers or helping to build meeting houses could be determined to be an establishment of religion.

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Mr. Huntington's thoughts go on:

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

And the Father speaks again:

Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

So why wasn't "national religion" used?

Mr. Gerry did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the convention at the time they were considering the present convention. It had been insisted upon by those who were called antifederalists, that this form of Government consolidated the Union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considered it in the same light. Those who were called antifederalists at that time complained that they had injustice dome them by title, because they were in favor of a Federal Government, and the others were in favor of the national one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and antifederalists, but rats and antirats.

The problem was that one might construe "national religion" to mean that the govt was also "national." The whole point was that it was supposed to be a "Federal" govt, with the States retaining a good amount of powers.

Mr. Madison withdrew his motion, but observed that the words "no national religion shall be established by law," did not imply that the Government was a national one; the question was then taken on Mr. Livermore's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against it.

So what DID Madison think?

Last edited by freak; 10-20-2006 at 07:49 AM..
__________________
Go 'Cats, beat Maine!
:Redsox: Believe.....2004.
Another week, another win.
Ummm, yeah......
Wake up the ghosts of the Gahden.
  freak is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 07:42 AM   #164
Undertaker #59*
Customer User Title goes here
 
Undertaker #59*'s Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Welcome to the wonderful world of morons, psychopaths, and mental defectives.
Posts: 23,597
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $211747
My Mood


Undertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoon
Undertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoonUndertaker #59* causes furry woodland creatures and birds to sing to them like a Disney cartoon
Quote:
Originally posted by SteelerFan87 on 10-20-2006 at 02:24 AM
And "proven scientific fact"? How has evolution been proven? The thing about it is it CAN'T be proven. It doesn't even follow the scientific method, because it is impossible to conduct an experiment to either prove or disprove it. Unless, of course, you've got a few million years to spend conducting an experiment.
Evolution is as proven as Gravity.
  Undertaker #59* is offline Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2006, 07:53 AM   #165
freak
Registered User
 
freak's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Durham, NH
Posts: 2,255
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $71750


freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.freak is classy.
Quote:
Originally posted by PatsDVD on 10-19-2006 at 09:36 PM
Or at least the posters in this thread.

In 2006, anyone advocating for teaching anything about religion in the public schools (even politically correct "let's all respect everyone's religion") is ignoring the constitution and 200+ years of judicial decisions.
Oh, the irony. Perhaps you should read the Constitution again.

And FYI, the current interpretation of the 1st Amendment is not 200+ years of established precedent........it dates to the early 1900s.
__________________
Go 'Cats, beat Maine!
:Redsox: Believe.....2004.
Another week, another win.
Ummm, yeah......
Wake up the ghosts of the Gahden.
  freak is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.