Chik-fil-A

[Skipjack]

You regard being called an "Austrian" as an ad hominem attack? I did not realize you had such a low opinion of your country.

No the point was that instead of contradicting my argument, you resorted to question my right to an opinion(as in the Austrian) on the matter. That is an ad hominem attack.

Hopefully he will grow up with a better understanding and appreciation of American principles than you have.

I do very much respect the principles in the american constitution, which is why I actually commented of the lack of appreciation that some people have been showing for them lately and I am not discriminating between the left and the right here, they both are equally guilty. The NDAA was equally supported by dems and reps and Obama in particular has lost almost all the respect I had for him at that point.
Just to make this clear.
Oh and ad hominem again. No factual argumentation, just personal attacks and more of the same, pittyful.

[Diogenes]

You regard being called an "Austrian" as an ad hominem attack? I did not realize you had such a low opinion of your country.

No the point was that instead of contradicting my argument, you resorted to question my right to an opinion(as in the Austrian) on the matter. That is an ad hominem attack.

To point out that someone who is not a member of a particular organization, somehow feels entitled to involve himself in the business of others is not an ad hominem, it is a round about way of telling someone to mind their own business and leave ours to us.

Hopefully he will grow up with a better understanding and appreciation of American principles than you have.

I do very much respect the principles in the american constitution, which is why I actually commented of the lack of appreciation that some people have been showing for them lately and I am not discriminating between the left and the right here, they both are equally guilty. The NDAA was equally supported by dems and reps and Obama in particular has lost almost all the respect I had for him at that point.
Just to make this clear.

That anyone had any respect for that man just goes to show that they are complete idiots, and the levers of power should always be kept far away from such gullible people. You bought the hype. You some how thought that a person who has been affirmative actioned all his life, and who has never had any real accomplishments at all, who's never held a real job before (Unless you count the time he worked for Baskin Robins in Hawaii) was somehow competent and prepared to be the leader of a Large nation.

If ever an emperor was naked from the beginning, it was this guy, and yet so many gullible people simply couldn't see through the media smoke screen. I was hoping that when he won a Nobel prize for being black, it would have woke people up, but some people desperately cling to their delusional world view.

Oh and ad hominem again. No factual argumentation, just personal attacks and more of the same, pittyful.

Yeah, that one i'll agree is an ad hominem. From my perspective, you have an understanding of American culture that is deeply at odds with the founding principles of this Nation, and now you've come here to try and bring a little more of the doctrine which is destroying Europe? I should feel glad about this?

[seedload]

Madison had a great deal of input to the U.S. Constitution, and he is your best argument in support of your theory, but he is not sufficient to counter the other founders (and ratifiers in the State Legislatures) who have expressed an opinion contrary to his.

Jefferson was not involved in writing the U.S. Constitution. He had no input on it's creation. Paine was of course not a delegate either, and was despised in his later days for advocating his deist philosophy. John Adams expresses clearly the notion that the Government of the United States was by default Christian, you have just chosen to ignore such of his quotes which indicate this, and Washington has also expressed by written word and various deeds that he likewise regarded the Christian religion as the default condition of the national government.

As I pointed out, it's in the bloody document itself! I'll point out another example where evidence of Christian bias is written into the U.S. Constitution.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Now why would they do that? It is a tacit acknowledgement that the President cannot be compelled to work on the Christian day of Worship. It is just more proof that the founders legally regarded Christianity as the default culture of the United States.

You have two obvious allusions to Christianity written into the Founding document, and yet people are still trying to pretend that our founders were neutral on the subject?

There is SO MUCH evidence(besides the Constitutional references) which disputes this, that only someone who is ignorant of it's existence can credibly claim we were founded with a secular government. Once you actually look back at the historical record you discover quickly that this perspective was contrived in the last half of the 20th Century.

Not sure how you could possibly consider "allusions to Christianity" to trump "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

I can think of no more definitive statements.

I did find it funny that you tried to put the Constitutional delegate requirement on my quotes while you site webpages that don't follow that requirement. Sorry, can't throw out Jefferson whether he was at the convention or not. You belittle his influence. Sorry, can't throw out all four of the first Presidents of the United States. But, if you want me to add a delegate, I'll choose Hamilton.

How about the Federalist Papers?

#10 - "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."
- Hamilton

#51 - "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."
- Madison

#57 - "No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people."
- Hamilton

#69 - "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. ... The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."
- Hamilton

The closest the Federalist Papers get to supporting your claim is John Jay in #2 saying, "...a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government...". But, as I originally posted on this thread, that is just a statement about who they are, it is not a statement of intent for government.

Also, doing some digging, you have said the following:

If the principles of the founders were derived from any foreigners, they were men such as Locke, Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, Burke, et al. These men were thinkers on natural law, and they realized that certain knowable things could be derived if one postulated the assumption that individuals had rights, and that it was a good thing for society if men did have rights.

There was this thing that happened called the "enlightenment." Seeing as how it was before our time, perhaps you had forgotten about it? Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Burke, Newton, etc.

The meaning of "Natural Law" is highly dependent upon which version you are talking about. If you are talking about the evolved philosophy of Locke , Rousseau, et al, the rights of man and all that stuff.

Locke is often credited with the concept of separation of church from state.
Pufendorf wrote about the limits between ecclesiastical and civil power.
Grotius wrote about binding natural law between nations divorced from religion.
Rousseau wrote of civil religion (God, afterlife, virtue, and religious tolerance). He also held that all virtuous religions are equal.

Probably the only example of someone you say influenced the founders who would provide support for your claim is Burke.

Of course, ultimately, your argument has this bit of troublesome dialog to overcome - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[Diogenes]

Not sure how you could possibly consider "allusions to Christianity" to trump "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" or "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

I can think of no more definitive statements.

And yet you seem to be at a loss in understanding of what the above statements mean. The word "Congress" is obvious in the sentence. It means CONGRESS is inhibited from passing a law which creates an established state religion. It does not inhibit the States whatsoever, nor does it inhibit Executive or Judicial recognition of religion. Here, argue with Lincoln.





In fact it is BECAUSE the States are not inhibited from Establishing official state religions that CONGRESS was specifically prevented from doing so, because were Congress to act in such a manner, it would trample on something rightfully regarded at the time as being within the sole power of the Individual State Governments.

I did find it funny that you tried to put the Constitutional delegate requirement on my quotes while you site webpages that don't follow that requirement.

I am sorry for my inability to edit linked pages to exclude all but the item I wished for you to focus upon. In the future, please be aware that I may cite links to a page that contains information which is irrelevant to my point. I am sorry I overestimated your ability to filter out extraneous information, and I will try to do better in the future.

Sorry, can't throw out Jefferson whether he was at the convention or not. You belittle his influence.

He wasn't there. How much influence could he have from Paris?

Sorry, can't throw out all four of the first Presidents of the United States.

Didn't try to do so. I tried to acquaint you with others of their writings which disagree with your premise. For example, John Adams wrote:

In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.

But, if you want me to add a delegate, I'll choose Hamilton.
How about the Federalist Papers?

#10 - "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."
- Hamilton

#51 - "In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights."
- Madison

#57 - "No qualification of wealth, of birth, of religious faith, or of civil profession is permitted to fetter the judgement or disappoint the inclination of the people."
- Hamilton

#69 - "The President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual and hereditary prince. ... The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism."
- Hamilton

You were maybe going to put up some Hamiltonian quotes which supported your argument perhaps? Yes, google is wonderful and all, but it helps to actually have cites that speak to your point.

The closest the Federalist Papers get to supporting your claim is John Jay in #2 saying, "...a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government...". But, as I originally posted on this thread, that is just a statement about who they are, it is not a statement of intent for government.

Also, doing some digging, you have said the following:

If the principles of the founders were derived from any foreigners, they were men such as Locke, Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, Bynkershoek, Burlamaqui, Burke, et al. These men were thinkers on natural law, and they realized that certain knowable things could be derived if one postulated the assumption that individuals had rights, and that it was a good thing for society if men did have rights.

There was this thing that happened called the "enlightenment." Seeing as how it was before our time, perhaps you had forgotten about it? Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Burke, Newton, etc.

The meaning of "Natural Law" is highly dependent upon which version you are talking about. If you are talking about the evolved philosophy of Locke , Rousseau, et al, the rights of man and all that stuff.

You must be trying really hard if you are searching through my old comments! At least you are learning good stuff!

Locke is often credited with the concept of separation of church from state.
Pufendorf wrote about the limits between ecclesiastical and civil power.
Grotius wrote about binding natural law between nations divorced from religion.
Rousseau wrote of civil religion (God, afterlife, virtue, and religious tolerance). He also held that all virtuous religions are equal.

Yes, and he sent his bastard children to the orphanage as well, but i'm pretty sure the founders didn't adopt his morals as the standard they wished to embrace. I dare say they treated all of the philosophers like a buffet table, taking the parts they liked and could agree on, and leaving behind the parts which they found distasteful.

Probably the only example of someone you say influenced the founders who would provide support for your claim is Burke.

Of course, ultimately, your argument has this bit of troublesome dialog to overcome - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Oddly enough, I feel the same way regarding your lack of understanding of what is the meaning of those words. You keep getting tripped up because you mentally substitute the word "Federal" for the word "Congress".

As I have attempted to show, there are all sorts of examples throughout history which do not jive with your understanding. I wonder how many you have to see before you began to understand that your theory is incorrect.

Here is James Madison: (You aren't going to like what he has to say.)

[Skipjack]

To point out that someone who is not a member of a particular organization

Organization? You mean citizen of a country? Whatever, dont think that I am stupid. It was an indirect attack at my person. So an ad hominem.
The use of that (and then again) makes you look stupid.

[Teahive]

This is all started because a public official decided to use the powers of state to ostracize a private company for their owners' convictions. Isn't it obvious both that this is a perfect example of intolerance, and that it is illegal for the state to so act?

I agree.
(Though this alone isn't the starting point of the whole discussion.)

The Gay Marriage “problem” has nothing to do with gays or with marriage. It is really about having the government use the power of legislature to change the meaning of words.

Laws tend to define terms for the sake of clarity. The problem is that there's a legal concept of marriage, and there's a religious/traditional concept of it (in fact there are many interpretations of the latter). If you want to avoid confusion then law should refrain from using the term marriage entirely. I'd have no objection to that.