Rover
Posts: 2634
Joined: 6/28/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ahumananimal
Nothing was taken out of context at all from what I can see.
Then you need to look a bit more closely, or a bit more objectively.
quote:
First, you attempted discrediting the notion of division between church and state by framing it as the construct of a KKK sympathizer.
The biography of Justice Hugo Black and his development of the notion of separation of church & state is readily available in print or online, for anyone that chooses to read it. Does motivation have anything to do with the way we perceive things? Absolutely, as many of these threads will attest, motivation is the crux of the matter. And frankly, I believe its reasonable to question the motives of a KKK sympathizer as it relates to constructing a Constitutional premise by which the government requires protection from the church.... a premise that until such time had never existed.
quote:
You insinuated coinage of the phrase and idea from then, but that's obviously not the case if you really look into the history of our country and the issues regarding this subject in its very beginning.
You're mixing apples and oranges. The history is clear that early concerns were to protect religion from the state, not to protect the state from religion. Justice Black's premise was antithetical to the intent of our Founding Fathers, and your insinuation that he is somehow a devotee of their original plan is conjecture without any shred of evidence.
You're a smart guy... confusing the need to protect religion from the state with protecting the state from religion cannot be accidental.
quote:
Then you shift to a more abstract idea of "intent" from the framers.
There is nothing abstract about their intent.
quote:
Jefferson and Madison's intent were clear in that they most certainly wanted a wall of division between church and state to go in both directions,
Please demonstrate in print where that is true. So far the only passage you relied upon, when viewed in the context of its complete sentence, has a meaning completely opposite of your portrayal. I prefer to see it in their own words, so forgive me if I don't rely upon your say-so. At times like this, I'm from Missouri. Show me.
quote:
otherwise (as the previous poster correctly noted) the Constitution itself, a document both men were quite involved with, would have promoted state-sanctioned religion in some way. Obviously, it does not. The Constitution doesn't have a secular tone for nothing.
The Framers had an obvious desire that the state should not infringe upon religion (and the free practice thereof) in the US. On that much we can agree, and on that much we can find ample direct evidence from the Founders that they intentionally desired that outcome.
So your reference to state sanctioned religion really comes out of left field, and I have no idea what its relevance could possibly be in this discussion. Unless you are implying that by specifically and obviously protecting against one (state intrusion on religion) they also meant to ambiguously and clandestinely protecting against the other (religious intrusion on the state). That would be quite a leap of faith.
Now let's also balance that with the understanding that the rights enumerated in the Constitution come directly from God. That fact is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
So the entire premise of the Constitution is predicated upon the fact that our Creator has given us those rights, and that men are simply committing them to writing. No God in the Constitution? You'd have to ignore the entire foundation upon which it is built.
quote:
To say the idea of division of church and state distills to ensuring the State does not harm the Church=Church can do as it pleases with the State doesn't pass muster at all, when you consider the distraught evangelicals of the time who wanted to break up the authority of established church and state (who were, by the way, the population who helped Madison win the Presidency for just this issue).
There have always been competing interests in the US, and always will be. To say that some folks felt differently is really immaterial. There were, and are, anarchists. Does that make our country lawless? There are, and were, monarchists (remember, Washington was first offered to be Emporer, which he declined... and the Founders went about the work of framing the Constitution as a result). Does that make our country a monarchy?
You're making a causal argument from something that is no better than a coincidence.
quote:
Bottom line: no matter how you want to spin or slice this historic time of passionate disagreement between separating church and state, the fact remains that this idea has been with us since America's inception, and it has been fought fiercely by both sides of the coin from our very beginnings, so please...
I rather doubt that any idea regarding government is very new. Not even to our Founding Fathers. What was new in the mid 20th century was to have a KKK sympathizer create, from whole cloth, a Constitutional protection that had never previously existed. He did not rely upon the Constitution itself. He didn't rely upon the intent of the Founders. He relied upon the prejudices and fears of the era to "re-write" the Constitution.
And that, my friend, is a documented historical fact. And evidenly one that you wish very hard not to be true.
quote:
do stop taking and leaving facts or entirely warping them for the I ARE DEH WINNAR thing you so obviously need to ingratiate yourself with.
Isn't it curious that folks equally engaged in a discussion will assert bad intentions upon their perceived opponent. Is that supposed to make your argument any more cogent or honest? Or simply to make you appear to be the "better man" when the facts fail you? Seriously, you disrespect yourself... though that is your right to do so.
John
< Message edited by Rover -- 11/3/2008 5:10:20 AM >
_____________________________
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions."
Sri da Avabhas
|
RE: Dominance in other Countries? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread