Interesting thought on dems, Bill of Rights

[lendaddy]

Though this is an original thought on my part I doubt I am the first to bring it up. It occured to me today that the liberals/dems (though not exclusively)are the ones trying to change our country from what it was intended to be. A quick look at the BoR will show you what I mean.

A1- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now I fail to see how that translates to "removal of religion". This one has been mutated beyond belief. What do you think free exorcise means? I say it doesn't mean a community has to hide their statues or Christmas trees from sight.

A2- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Again, pretty straight forward. This has been attacked by Dems with such malice that it is almost comical. How can you take this any other way? Hello, McFly..... Maybe they meant actual arms, like as in your limbs? Wow is all I can say.



A4- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ok, I can see where the Patriot act can be at odds with this. I need to do more research here. I would however argue that this is a departure from core conservative beliefs. We generally want big brother out of our business and yours.

A10- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This one is profound, Just think of all the programs that dems have put under the federal tent! I mean Daaaamn, read it! If the Federal Government does not have this duty spelled out to them, then it's not under their power/jurisdiction, simple really.

Since so much bastardization has occured on our founding documents it is no surprise to me that our system is so F'd up with judges writing law etc... It hurts my head.

Now please don't give me examples of specific people on my side doing this or that. I am talking about the core platforms of each party. I think it is pretty obvious which one has lost its way. As a homework project I would love to see a BoR written the way libs would have it. I don't need one from the conservatives as I have read that one already.

Man, rereading this I sound like Speeder except with supporting facts I need a beer.

[lendaddy]

Just wanted to clarify. I am talking about the core platforms of each party. I am sure examples can be found of each being at odds with the constituion, but I am not talking about moderated beliefs here, just hard platforms.

[djmcmath]

My big beef is the first amendment -- people always mis-quote the first amendment as saying there should be a "separation of church and state," which isn't true at all. Moreover, having "separated" church and state, all we've really done is remove Judeo-Christianity. Having removed the religion of Creationism from our science classrooms, we've replaced it with the religion of Evolution. We've officially removed prayer in schools, and the Ten Commandments, and so on, but Buddhism is ok, and so is atheism. Muslims, whose governing document (the Koran) teaches that non-Muslims should all be killed and that any non-Muslim government should be overthrown is ok, too. So Judeo-Christianity is not ok, but atheism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., which are just as much religions, are ok? Hypocrites... You know, I wouldn't feel so bad about it if the liberals just came right out and said it -- "We're banning prayer in schools because we hate Christians." But to mask it up and hide their true purpose really bothers me. Like if a police officer pulled me over and explained that I had been randomly selected for a highway tax, I'd feel a lot less bad about paying the silly fine.

Well, that should fuel the fires some. [Dons asbestos undergarments in preparation for flames]


Dan

[lendaddy]

I will say ease back on the Koran teaching murder of non Muslims, thats kinda stretching it. Otherwise I fell your pain (in best clinton voice, pressed thumb and forefinger outstretched)

[Crowbob]

Len,

Have you read the Koran?

[lendaddy]

Not exactly cover to cover Anyway I have heard it explained that those statements are taken out of context, like the crusades in the Bible.

[Crowbob]

I haven't either. Just wondering. It seems to me all religious texts are taken out of context to suit individual needs or justify various behaviors.

Religious texts are like civil and common law. Look hard enough and you will find what you're looking for.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

The exact words "separation of Church and State" actually came from a letter written by T. Jefferson (yes, that one) in 1802. However the idea is found directly in the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Joseph Story comments:

"The remaining part of the clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any test or affirmation. It had a higher object: to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew, that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant in its own stratagems, to secure to itself an exclusive ascendancy over the human mind; and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."

Source of Material:

Commentaries on The Constitution of The United States by Joseph Story Vol. III, Page 705-709. De Capo Press Reprints in American Constitutional And Legal History series, Da Capo Press NY 1970 (Joseph Story's Commentaries were originally published in 1833)

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by djmcmath
we've replaced it with the religion of Evolution

Oh, good grief. Creation is not empirically testable. Evolution is and has been. It is not a religion. It is a theory. One that has withstood many scientifically performed tests.

[Crowbob]

Blue,

I don't intend to rankle you but evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. The rather simplistic description in Genesis does not in itself, because of it's simplicity, rule out the possibility that God created the universe, including evolution.

[lendaddy]

Trying not to be obtuse but from this statement

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The autor determines they meant

It had a higher object: to cut off forever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government.

I gotta say thats quite an interpretation. I doubt they meant to require such reading between the lines when they wrote that sucker. But then thats JMHO

A common man such as my self might think that

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

means you cannot require office holders or groups in concert with the government to be of a certain relgion. Maybe I'm just too simple?

[BlueSkyJaunte]

JIMCRY,

I shouldn't have placed that sentence about creation in my note. I intended to specifically address calling evolution a "religion", which it isn't.

With this post I'm signing off this thread.

[lendaddy]

BillyPilgrim,
I think you and I would have a good time over beer. I am not a religious person either but I am not so sure I'm an atheist either. Anyway you make some good points. I am however a hardcore Republican. I believe in the raw core of the party not the fringe outsiders that have moved my party. That being said I think it will be much easier to get my party back to its core than to completely change the dems if you know what I mean.

[djmcmath]

Wow, that _did_ stir up some debate, woohoo!

1. The Koran, in fact, does teach that infidels should be killed. This tends to be kept fairly quiet in Western Muslim teachings, but the source documentation does, in fact, teach this. You could argue "teaching out of context," but there's way too many "war verses" for that argument to hold any water. And yes, BTW, I have read some significant portions of the Koran (in English -- my Arabic isn't so hot ).

2. Comparing Muslim Holy Wars to the Crusades is common, but a poor comparison. The Catholics/Christians wearing the cross to justify their violent actions could not point to a piece of text in their Holy Book that actually ordered them to do what they were doing. (At best, they could point to some segments of the old testament which describes battles, but did not recommend them for future generations.) Hundreds of years later, the Catholic church (and to some lesser extent, the Protestants) are apologizing for the actions of people who acted way outside anything the documentation ever ordered them to do. In contrast, the Koran actually teaches holy wars -- it's considered a Good Idea, and something that should be done regularly, if not full-time. Exactly the same applies to the Spanish Inquisition -- the Inquisitors could not honestly justify their actions with the supporting documentation. The Muslims who commit various atrocities in the name of their God can, and will continue to do so.

3. Evolution is no more empirically testable than Creation. Both are philosophies of origins which find their bases in opposing theological arguments. Both require an element of faith to believe in events which have not been seen and which cannot be duplicated. Evolution (in its purist form) assumes no God, or a relatively uninvolved God, while Creation (in it's purist form) assumes a heavily involved Creator. Ultimately, both evolution and creation meet the requirements for being religious beliefs. The fact that we teach one and outlaw the other is a hypocritical violation of the "separation of church and state" argument because the teaching of evolution clearly leads into the teaching that there is no God. I would be quite happy if we taught both opposing theories as religious ideas in our schools, as "There are several possibilities for how we got here. Some people believe X, others believe Y." What we have instead is the teaching of the theory of evolution as uncontested fact while teachers are forbidden from saying anything about creation.

4. Blue, you're absolutely right -- Jefferson did say "separation of church and state," and with good cause. Unfortunately, we've pretty much walked away from that, as well. We teach all sorts of interesting things in our schools, but don't even think about saying "heaven" or "God" or you're in serious trouble. Heck, we don't even have a "Christmas Holiday" anymore -- it's "Winter Break." The presentation that used to be the Christmas Show has been renamed the Winter Show. We can't teach "Frosty the Snowman" because there's some vague reference to kindness associated with a particular season, which may remind someone of Christmas, which may remind someone of God, in some vague way, which makes school administrators uncomfortable. Yoga lessons taught by the local Buddhist temple are perfectly acceptable. Muslim day is just fine. The environmentalists (who have some good points, but often go too far) may come in and teach our children that the life of an animal is more important than the life of a human, and that god is in all things, and is all things. But suggest even remotely in the direction of a Judeo-Christian God and you're liable to find yourself out on the curb.

5. As to evolution and science ... evolution has been pushed so heavily for so long that most people quietly accept it as truth, despite the fact that empirical evidence is sorely lacking. The fossil chain is ridiculously thin, the arguments to support "sudden bursts of evolution" are weak, at best, and senior evolution proponents are denouncing the whole theory. We demonstrate large scale evolutionary processes by claiming that they are identical to the generation of flaws in fruit flies brought about by breeding, without recognizing that such flaws are neither repeatable nor maintainable. People cite Darwin's work without ever having read it, and our poor children are too impressionable to wonder whether or not the evidence the teacher is presenting is sound. People continue to argue for an incredibly old earth, more so as required by increasingly older requirements from the evolutionist camp, despite the complete lack of supporting evidence.




I'd be happy with some moderation, a middle ground. I don't mind Buddhists or atheists teaching in our schools, but I object to the complete rejection of Judeo-Christian background.


Dan

[djmcmath]

I thought I'd present a bit of evidence to make this a little objective.

Some articles at the Insitute for Creation Research:

Evolution as religion:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm

Carbon dating fails to support old earth:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-364.htm

Biology fails to support Evolution:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-368.htm


Another site; this crowd has put together a variety of articles, some good, some not so good:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

A great many well-researched articles on the topic are found at sites run by Christians -- get over it, read the articles for what they are and filter through what you don't need:
http://christiananswers.net/creation/



Some Islamic facts:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/TWOR/peacepromoting.html


.... that should suffice, for now.


Dan

[lendaddy]

For the record, I did not intend this thread to become a referendum on religion. However, as a self admitted hijacker I won't complain

[Moses]

Originally posted by djmcmath

5. As to evolution and science ... evolution has been pushed so heavily for so long that most people quietly accept it as truth, despite the fact that empirical evidence is sorely lacking. Dan

Sorry Dan, but evolution is no longer a theory. It is scientific fact.

In order to demonstrate evolution you need only observe genetic changes in a population that allow adaptation.

In the simplest experiment, you can expose a colony of bacteria (30 minute generation time-perfect for evolution studies) to a very dilute concentration of Penicillin. Gradually increase the Penicillin concentration and within a week or so you have a new population of bacteria that are resistant to Penicillin. And guess what? You can actually find that this population of bacteria now posesses a brand new piece of DNA that gives it it's Penicillin resistance! This new DNA is inheritable and transferable! Voila! Evolution pure and simple.

[CamB]

Christian beliefs can also support evolution - something had to kickstart the process (eg, the "big bang"). That's how I look at it and what I believe. I just can't read Genesis literally.

I believe the Bible is the word of God. I also believe if the Bible said "and Adam was the product of millions of years of waiting and E V O L U T I O N", then the Chosen people would have ignored God, or at least been terribly confused. Genesis was and is, IMO, written for its audience.

[lendaddy]

I only say that because I know how volitile these arguments can get. Just don't want it to get too ugly.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by BillyPilgrim
...You say teachers aren’t allowed to mention creationism. My (Jewish) public high school science teacher, when discussing evolution, briefly talked about creationism ...

When I went through high school, which wasn't really _that_ long ago, creation was briefly mentioned as "an obvious fallacy." When my little brother went through 5 years later, teachers were specifically forbidden from mentioning creationism. My brother actually spoke with one such teacher off-line and was received the cautious explanation that creation teaching was specifically forbidden. The school that my mother teaches at is amazing -- any reference that might imply that there even exists a Judeo-Christian viewpoint is off-limits. My mother was counseled for singing a song with the kids (she's a music teacher) that referred to the sky as "heaven!"

Perhaps other states, or other school systems have more conservative natures, or allow students to collect facts and analyze objective viewpoints -- mine did not. My little brother's did not. My mother's does not.

Dan