JVoV
Posts: 3660
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
That's a valiant effort, jif, but no sale.
As a supporter of the 2nd amendment, myself, I appreciate how scrupulously you like to read that amendment.
Let's do the same with the 1st?
quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
the phrase after that has to do with freedom of speech so not specifically germane, here (I'll argue expressing my religion under the first four phrases at a later date).
So, let's read this, literally:
quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
Cool! Congress isn't going to tell me what I am required to believe. I like that.
quote:
"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Congress isn't going to prohibit my free exercise of religion. Out-fucking-standing!
Where does it say there's a "wall of separation" (Jefferson's words in his "Danbury" letter)? Nowhere, mon frère.
The Constitution, as written, does NOT specifically preclude religion from influencing the government. As an example, what would stop every theist in the country from only supporting candidates of which they approved and "loading up" the house and senate with fellow theists?
Where in the constitution, as written, could they run a-foul if they publicly stated that they hope the theists they elect will "look to God" before voting on any laws and follow the precepts of the bible (old and new testaments. We all know Muslims are special, already so that's a foregone conclusion) when they do so? Again; nowhere.
Moreover, the Constitution does NOT say (in the first amendment) that religion canNOT use government as a tool; just that government can't establish a religion.
Look, I think the first fails to address our modern issues, as well. I don't want people whose religion I disagree with passing laws, telling me how to live my life, either, but the assertion that "separation of church and state" appears in the Constitution instead of Jefferson's aforementioned letter is patently false.
Michael
The idea of separation of church and state is not only found in the First Amendment.
quote:
[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
None of this implies that people of faith cannot be involved in government, of course. It simply creates a secular government, to rule over people of all faiths, so that the United States would be a different world than say England under Henry VIII, or the Holy Roman Empire.
Of course, though intended or not, it also should have prevented a government sanctioned version of Sharia Law, based on any religion. Yet religious influences have obviously permeated state and local laws as moral and community standards, from preferential zoning laws, the sale of alcohol, and Sabbath laws, to criminalizing certain sexual activities in private amongst consenting adults. Congress themselves have pushed religious doctrines in laws as well, such as the Defense of Marriage Act and adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The former has been struck down by SCOTUS, while the latter can no longer be forced upon public school children.
Now, to the original matter of the thread: Perez was wrong. But we only have a sound bite and catchy headlines, so the context of his words are lost until a transcript or video of the speech is provided. That doesn't stop him from being a completely useless establishment fuckwad, but it does stop me from saying he's a fucking moron for the time being.
|
RE: Oh! That Wacky DNC - 
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