Constitutionality conversation.

[Darth]

Freedom OF religion isn't that hard. But the liberal left has twisted it into freedom FROM religion. Two different things. This country was founded very much on religious principles by religious men. There was never any intent that no one could practice or display their religion in the public or political forum. What they said was that government couldn't establish a religion such as England had an official state sponsored religion.

Freedom of religion is, by its very virtue, freedom from religion in the sense of government supporting one over the other. They literally MUST not support one, as if they do, by definition they are making law respecting an establishment of religion.

This country was, thankfully, in no way founded on any one religion, despite what the right likes to trumpet. And the day thing is they know this, right up until its a religion they don't agree with. Then they get all confused.

 

[holdover]

That's the problem, the government has over stepped its bounds , It has decided to make our country a state in a global government. A government which you cannot vote out its leaders . Our government is illegitimate, people just haven't come to the realization yet. Gun owners are the first group in the new government to be oppressed .

 

[holdover]

Freedom of religion is, by its very virtue, freedom from religion .

Except when it becomes oppression of someone's religion.

 

[Darth]

Except when it becomes oppression of someone's religion.

Unless said people get confused about things like "public property."

Like, for example, if I'm paying for a courthouse with my tax dollars and am called there for a fair and impartial trial, there had better not be any religious crap marring up the lawn.

 

[holdover]

??? Could you rephrase that?

 

[Jmac00]

That's the problem, the government has over stepped its bounds , It has decided to make our country a state in a global government. A government which you cannot vote out its leaders . Our government is illegitimate, people just haven't come to the realization yet. Gun owners are the first group in the new government to be oppressed .

I think after this impeachment bullshit, many people will be "woke" ( I really don't like that term )

 

[holdover]

I would like to think so , But I don't know.

 

[spat]

Unless said people get confused about things like "public property."

Like, for example, if I'm paying for a courthouse with my tax dollars and am called there for a fair and impartial trial, there had better not be any religious crap marring up the lawn.

The 1A bars laws regarding *establishment* of religion.

My interpretation of that means that the government is prohibited from even deciding what is and isn't religious activity.

So, to bar that "religious crap" from the lawn, they better have a reason besides it being religious, because they are not allowed to even decide what is and isn't.

And before you mention it, yes, this means that churches shouldn't be tax exempt unless they qualify under general charitable guidelines that have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Darth]

The 1A bars laws regarding *establishment* of religion.

My interpretation of that means that the government is prohibited from even deciding what is and isn't religious activity.

So, to bar that "religious crap" from the lawn, they better have a reason besides it being religious, because they are not allowed to even decide what is and isn't.

And before you mention it, yes, this means that churches shouldn't be tax exempt unless they qualify under general charitable guidelines that have nothing to do with religion.

Everybody should be tax exempt. Taxation is theft.

And, no, considering I pay for it and it is impossible to support one without de facto harming another, the government must necessarily not involve itself with religion.

 

[vanderblack]

History has shown plenty of disrespect for laws. As the masses sway back and forth, a majority can come to feel a law is unjust and through popular opinion, come to ignore it or its original meaning. It is not how things should be but it happens. Back in the day, in somewhere-usa, there was a law that prohibited eating ice cream in public on Sundays. At the time, there was a reason the law was put into place. It is likely that, at the time, most people agreed it served a purpose important to the people. As time moved on, the reason faded or maybe ice cream became more popular but it got to the point that most if not all people of the town found the law ridiculous to the point that many ignored it and no one enforced it. It remained on the books into the late 1990's. Obviously the law was not based on the Constitution and of far less importance. But, the issues surrounding us today in relation to constitutional law is similar. We face a growing number of people that feel certain constitutional laws should not apply to society. When they become the majority, there will still be a large minority to keep it in check. However, as the majority grows and the minority declines, there comes a tipping point that not enough people will exist to oppose the majority to the degree that they (or most) care. They will pass unconstitutional laws and all agree they are within their right to do so. People will view the few left opposing the 'unconstitutional' laws as radical, deranged or ill. At that point, is the new law unconstitutional? If I honestly believe I am floating above the ground and everyone that comes in contact with me honestly believes I am floating above the ground, am I not floating above the ground? Well, no, but as far as everyone is concerned, I am.

We as a society give credence to laws. When there is no one left to give credence, is the law still a law?

 

[GOPerfect]

The 1A bars laws regarding *establishment* of religion.

My interpretation of that means that the government is prohibited from even deciding what is and isn't religious activity.

So, to bar that "religious crap" from the lawn, they better have a reason besides it being religious, because they are not allowed to even decide what is and isn't.

And before you mention it, yes, this means that churches shouldn't be tax exempt unless they qualify under general charitable guidelines that have nothing to do with religion.

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.


I think this is as important(in red) as the first part.

Tax exempt status? Right there with you.

 

[SomeSoldier]

The words of the opposing documents are what determines it. But I guess whoever enforces the laws technically decide.

We decide with our votes. We vote people in that we think have the same understanding of the Constitution that we do. If that person doesn't have that same view or has lied to us we remove that person from office and put someone else in.

 

[GOPerfect]

We decide with our votes. We vote people in that we think have the same understanding of the Constitution that we do. If that person doesn't have that same view or has lied to us we remove that person from office and put someone else in.

What about the Federal courts where they are there for life? Seems like a long time to wait.

 

[SomeSoldier]

What about the Federal courts where they are there for life? Seems like a long time to wait.

Go against the Constitution be charged with sedition and stand before the people for judgment.

 

[spat]

Everybody should be tax exempt. Taxation is theft.

And, no, considering I pay for it and it is impossible to support one without de facto harming another, the government must necessarily not involve itself with religion.

How does the government decide what is religion and what isn't ?

Barring anything "religious" is implicitly (and unconstitutionally) establishing Atheism is the state religion.

Better to just consider it all on it's non-religious merit.

10 commandments in a court house ? It's a historical legal code, sounds good. Would you object to the code of Hammurabi in a court house ? if not then why the 10 commandments ?

Nativity at city hall ? Do the majority of the citizens of the city want it ? Would you object to a Disney princess display there instead if the majority of the citizens wanted it ?

 

[Darth]

How does the government decide what is religion and what isn't ?

Barring anything "religious" is implicitly (and unconstitutionally) establishing Atheism is the state religion.

Except the fact that Atheism isn't a religion any more than bald is a hair color.

Better to just consider it all on it's non-religious merit.

10 commandments in a court house ? It's a historical legal code, sounds good. Would you object to the code of Hammurabi in a court house ? if not then why the 10 commandments ?

Yes, but for different reasons.

And no, it's not a historical legal code. It was stolen from many prior religions which were adapted from simple objective morality tainted with subjective desires.

Nativity at city hall ? Do the majority of the citizens of the city want it ? Would you object to a Disney princess display there instead if the majority of the citizens wanted it ?

Yes. As I pay for it, no thank you.

And as we don't live in a democracy, what the majority wants is irrelevant.

 

[Bozo]

Constitutionality is decided by those most willing to enforce their view. Despite the clear language of the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court decisions that affirm it, that unregistered handgun on my nightstand will send me to state prison. Ditto the box of loaded 20 round mags under the bed. Should the powers that be decide to enforce their current view of the Constitution, not one State Trooper or Sheriff's deputy will bar my door and prevent an arrest. No neighbors will come to my aid, and no forum members will lift a finger. Many in these groups will insist I surely deserved to be locked up. This I know.

We have elected officials at all levels, of every political persuasion, that are openly hostile to the Constitution specifically, and individual liberty in general. They have shown they are willing to enforce their view of constitutionality at the barrel of a gun, and we have done nothing.

 

[spat]

Except the fact that Atheism isn't a religion any more than bald is a hair color.


Yes, but for different reasons.

And no, it's not a historical legal code. It was stolen from many prior religions which were adapted from simple objective morality tainted with subjective desires.
Yes. As I pay for it, no thank you.

And as we don't live in a democracy, what the majority wants is irrelevant.

You can insist that Atheism isn't a religion all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a greater leap of faith than the "real" religions.

The Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc... all assert a belief in something that is at least in principle provable. God could show up tomorrow and tell us who is right and who is wrong.

The Atheists have faith in something that isn't even in principle provable.

Plus, if you're not a religion, then you're religious freedom isn't being compromised by having to look at some rock on the lawn of the courthouse.

I get the "waste my tax dollars" thing, but a 10 commandments display isn't any more of a waste than some modern art masterpiece that there are no religious connotations to at all. So that's not relevant to this discussion.

 

[spat]

And as we don't live in a democracy, what the majority wants is irrelevant.

So, how would you suggest we decide what artwork is acceptable for a government building ? Who gets to establish which art is "religious" and which isn't ? Isn't that the very thing prohibited by the 1A ?

And the 10 commandments are absolutely a historical legal code. All modern western legal codes are derived partly from them. Just because they aren't original is irrelevant. There probably aren't any completely original legal codes known to man, they all derive from prehistoric traditions and norms.

You can argue that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on artwork at all, and that argument would have some merit, but that's not what we are discussing here either.

 

[libertysnake]

Who decides if it goes against it?

The buck stops with the people. If the people believe it violates the text of the law as written, that's what matters -- since the government is supposed to be by, and for, the people. (The supreme court decisions are merely confined to how the government interprets the laws and rights we have, and how the government enforces them.)

End of the day, I'm for calling the constitutional convention. If the dems are so confident in everyone being anti-gun, then let's put it to vote. I'd rather say we had a vote on it as a society, then live in the ambiguity and will of nine tyrant SOBs who think the choice is up to them. Let the people decide.

 

[seezur]

Except the fact that Atheism isn't a religion any more than bald is a hair color.


Yes, but for different reasons.

And no, it's not a historical legal code. It was stolen from many prior religions which were adapted from simple objective morality tainted with subjective desires.
Yes. As I pay for it, no thank you.

And as we don't live in a democracy, what the majority wants is irrelevant.

I think it’s important to be realistic. Many of us pay taxes. Most of that money doesn’t go to things we directly want or need. Getting bent out of shape because of a religious symbol, on a lawn, that you paid one one trillionth of a penny towards, is probably not worth it. Going after fraud, fund abuse and big money sinks is a better use of time.

But getting back to the constitution bit, I really do think the anti 2A crowd are uninformed at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Of all the rights and laws and rules the 2A is one of the clearest, and laws become unconstitutional when they inhibit it in any way. I think many anti 2A people aren’t actually plotting our demise. It’s probably that they just don’t care about guns. If you don’t value guns, are willing to outsource your protection to the police and watch the media reports of mass shootings, why wouldn’t you be anti gun?

It’s a difference of culture and sadly our culture isn’t winning. As to the question of what to do after the courts keep chipping away at our constitutional rights? It’s either comply or don’t. Lots of people don’t. It seems like whenever there’s an article in the ”firearms in the news” section about someone getting arrested for a “gun crime”, people laugh at the “stupid criminal”. And sometimes they deserve it. But like it or not, if they keep removing our rights, we’re going to be criminals too.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I think it’s important to be realistic. Many of us pay taxes. Most of that money doesn’t go to things we directly want or need. Getting bent out of shape because of a religious symbol, on a lawn, that you paid one one trillionth of a penny towards, is probably not worth it. Going after fraud, fund abuse and big money sinks is a better use of time.

But getting back to the constitution bit, I really do think the anti 2A crowd are uninformed at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Of all the rights and laws and rules the 2A is one of the clearest, and laws become unconstitutional when they inhibit it in any way. I think many anti 2A people aren’t actually plotting our demise. It’s probably that they just don’t care about guns. If you don’t value guns, are willing to outsource your protection to the police and watch the media reports of mass shootings, why wouldn’t you be anti gun?

It’s a difference of culture and sadly our culture isn’t winning. As to the question of what to do after the courts keep chipping away at our constitutional rights? It’s either comply or don’t. Lots of people don’t. It seems like whenever there’s an article in the ”firearms in the news” section about someone getting arrested for a “gun crime”, people laugh at the “stupid criminal”. And sometimes they deserve it. But like it or not, if they keep removing our rights, we’re going to be criminals too.

We already are criminals if we decide to do something that was once legal. Years ago you could have bought a Thompson Submachine gun from Joe’s local hardware store without him being a FFL and without you getting a background check. You could then in turn shorten the barrel and legally sell it to Tom your neighbor.

Now it’s illegal. It wasn’t illegal then. It was totally Constitutional then. Then some politician passed a law abolishing it and a bought and paid for clown who masquerades as a judge wearing a black robe ruled the infringement Constitutional.

Now when someone sells a fully automatic weapon from his truck and gets caught, the lemmings here on this very forum say that stupid is what stupid does and he deserves all that’s coming to him. He’s a criminal. It’s too early now but in a generation, someone with a semi auto rifle with a pistol grip who sells it from his truck will be just as criminal as the guy who sold his Mac 10 on the street.

You see how ignorant they are? You see how gullible they are? You see how easily fooled they are?

They have been bamboozled and are too stupid to realize it. And when someone like me or you point out the fact that the supposed criminal is having his rights violated, we become criminal lovers and cop haters for calling the cop out on his oath violation. Some will even go as far as to say that we are a danger to the police for bringing this up and putting their lives in danger for hate generation.

Who deserves the hate? Those that point out the infringements or those that pass the infringements, affirm the infringements, and enforce those infringements?

 

[spat]

I think it’s important to be realistic. Many of us pay taxes. Most of that money doesn’t go to things we directly want or need. Getting bent out of shape because of a religious symbol, on a lawn, that you paid one one trillionth of a penny towards, is probably not worth it. Going after fraud, fund abuse and big money sinks is a better use of time.

But getting back to the constitution bit, I really do think the anti 2A crowd are uninformed at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Of all the rights and laws and rules the 2A is one of the clearest, and laws become unconstitutional when they inhibit it in any way. I think many anti 2A people aren’t actually plotting our demise. It’s probably that they just don’t care about guns. If you don’t value guns, are willing to outsource your protection to the police and watch the media reports of mass shootings, why wouldn’t you be anti gun?

It’s a difference of culture and sadly our culture isn’t winning. As to the question of what to do after the courts keep chipping away at our constitutional rights? It’s either comply or don’t. Lots of people don’t. It seems like whenever there’s an article in the ”firearms in the news” section about someone getting arrested for a “gun crime”, people laugh at the “stupid criminal”. And sometimes they deserve it. But like it or not, if they keep removing our rights, we’re going to be criminals too.

Most people laugh because they believe they are stupid for getting caught.

But eventually everyone screws up, and despite what people here say, they do not fully research all the laws of every locality they pass through when travelling. I do not fault some poor guy for whom the idea that mere possession of a pistol might be a felony is a foreign concept.

We will all be in that situation eventually.

You will have to choose between the ability to defend yourself and the potential conflict with law enforcement.

And when that conflict comes, you will have to choose between years in prison or defending yourself from them and taking your chances on escape.

 

[seezur]

We already are criminals if we decide to do something that was once legal. Years ago you could have bought a Thompson Submachine gun from Joe’s local hardware store without him being a FFL and without you getting a background check. You could then in turn shorten the barrel and legally sell it to Tom your neighbor.

Now it’s illegal. It wasn’t illegal then. It was totally Constitutional then. Then some politician passed a law abolishing it and a bought and paid for clown who masquerades as a judge wearing a black robe ruled the infringement Constitutional.

Now when someone sells a fully automatic weapon from his truck and gets caught, the lemmings here on this very forum say that stupid is what stupid does and he deserves all that’s coming to him. He’s a criminal. It’s too early now but in a generation, someone with a semi auto rifle with a pistol grip who sells it from his truck will be just as a criminal as the guy who sold his Mac 10 on the street.

You see how ignorant they are? You see how gullible they are? You see how easily fooled they are?

They have been bamboozled and are too stupid to realize it. And when someone like me or you point out the fact that the supposed criminal is having his rights violated, we become criminal lovers and cop haters for calling the cop out on his oath violation. Some will even go as far as to say that we are a danger to the police for bringing this up and putting their lives in danger for hate generation.

Who deserves the hate? Those that point out the infringements or those that pass the infringements, affirm the infringements, and enforce those infringements?

Over the years I’ve met some very nice people who weren‘t dangerous but were criminals, and real pieces of shit that were dangerous but had never been arrested.

I understand that there has to be overarching laws that broadly categorize things. There are too many people and too much is happening and a cop is never going to be able to do a thorough investigation into the character of each person he/she interacts with. And why would they, as their very job is to enforce these overarching laws, not to really dissect them.

That being said, I’ve never been a fan of the police and my reasoning is purely pragmatic. Basically, there has never been a situation or interaction where the police helped me or added value. They have only given me traffic citations, or bitched at me. The one time I actually needed help (car ran out of gas on a busy corner) a cop pulled over to see what I was “up to” and after realizing it wasn’t something he could charge me for, drove off. Some construction workers two houses down gave me gas from their work truck so I could get out before someone smashed into me.

There are too many useless and reactionary laws and cops aren’t trained to be public servants. In fact, I don’t think you can train someone to be a public servant. Rather it comes from being a part of a tight knit community and wanting to protect its members. That’s not the culture anymore.

Going after some guy who saws off a shotgun barrel or is driving 30 over on an empty highway is not protecting the community. Going after a sex trafficker or a domestic abuser is righteous. Unfortunately even good cops are in a tough spot because they have to uphold “the law” which means routinely trampling on our constitutional rights. The only solution I’ve found is to treat cops like I treat gangbangers: stay the hell away from them. That’s the best way to protect my rights without getting into the whole “blood tree of liberty” shtick.

I think it‘s all just an adaptation to bureaucratic and legal bloat and the decaying moral fiber of our country. I’m not sure if there’s a way back.

 

[Curmudgeon]

This country was founded very much on religious principles by religious men.

This actually isn't true.

Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Paine specifically were athiests. So much that Paine's closest friends disowned him because of it.

Franklin frequently wrote about how preposterous he thought the idea of god was.

 

[Bob]

This actually isn't true.

Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Paine specifically were athiests. So much that Paine's closest friends disowned him because of it.

Franklin frequently wrote about how preposterous he thought the idea of god was.

None of them were actually Atheists.

Franklin was raised Puritan and rebelled against it as a youth. He later specifically claimed Deism, stating that he believed in God as creator, but not intervening in human behavior. He proposed opening the 1787 Constitutional Convention with prayer, and it was soundly rejected. He also stated at the Convention "...the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men."

Paine was also Deist. He very clearly believed in God, but rejected the notion of organized religion. In Age of Reason, he wrote "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." and "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter."

Jefferson generally kept his religious views to himself. He made many references to God as the creator. Whether he evolved or simply become more open later in life, his views became a little more clear. Be believed in the moral teachings of Jesus, but rejected Jesus as the son of God. He also rejected the notions of miracles, ascension, and original sin. He included "prayers" in many of his letters, though it's difficult to say if he was sincere or just being respectful. If you wanted to place him in a bucket, he was somewhere between "closeted Deist" and Agnostic but definitely not Atheist. He definitely questioned God and religion, but did not specifically reject God.

Adams was also not outspoken about his religion, but he was somewhere between Deist and Unitarian. He definitely believed in a Christian God as the creator, and apparently rejected the Trinity. While in England in the late 1780s, he regularly attended Unitarian services. In an 1816 letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote "Conclude not from all this, that I have renounced the Christian Religion, or that I agree with Dupuis in all his Sentiments. Far from it. I See in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity, and Something to discredit its Corruptions."

 

[Darth]

So, how would you suggest we decide what artwork is acceptable for a government building ? Who gets to establish which art is "religious" and which isn't ? Isn't that the very thing prohibited by the 1A ?

And the 10 commandments are absolutely a historical legal code. All modern western legal codes are derived partly from them. Just because they aren't original is irrelevant. There probably aren't any completely original legal codes known to man, they all derive from prehistoric traditions and norms.

You can argue that tax dollars shouldn't be spent on artwork at all, and that argument would have some merit, but that's not what we are discussing here either.

Religious (adj) - relating to or believing in a religion.

 

[spat]

Religious (adj) - relating to or believing in a religion.

Religion (n) - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe



In what way does that not describe Atheism ?

 

[Robin]

Freedom of religion is, by its very virtue, freedom from religion in the sense of government supporting one over the other. They literally MUST not support one, as if they do, by definition they are making law respecting an establishment of religion.

This country was, thankfully, in no way founded on any one religion, despite what the right likes to trumpet. And the day thing is they know this, right up until its a religion they don't agree with. Then they get all confused.

Nice word play, you could be Shiff, at the impeachment hearing, Or Arnett at Ben Tre.
Robin

 

[spat]

Religious (adj) - relating to or believing in a religion.

Also, how does this help determine which statue is "religious" and which one isn't ?

Are schools not allowed to serve spaghetti for lunch anymore because that is establishing pastafarianism ?