Celebrate Diversity

[White_Male_Canada]

Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.

Agreed! Good point, Trish.

Hardly.

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Individuals come together to bring into existance,make,establish their organization first,then are usually granted 501(C)3 status if they meet the rules of that section,which can even include corporations.Even Anton Levay`s Church of Satan is eligble for tax-exempt status.But they choose not to.

[Ecstatic]

Brilliantly,wrong. Max is closer to the historical facts than you`ll ever be,being a leftist.

My, the non sequiturs keep on coming. One's political leanings do not dictate how accurate one's grasp of historical fact is; there is no correlation between the two. Max may or may not be closer to the historical facts, but not by virtue of political belief. That is patently absurd.

The words “separation of church and state” was in a letter from Jefferson. But it only became a constitutional position in the 1940s by a bare majority vote of the United States Supreme Court. It was stuck in the opinion(Everson Vs.Board of Education); it wasn’t even a part of the decision, by Hugo Black. Do you know who Justice Hugo Black was?

When Black was put on the court, he was a Senator from Alabama. He was put on the court by FDR. Do you know that before Robert Bird, he was a member of the KKK? And did you know that Justice Hugo Black despised the Catholic religion? He had all these conspiracy theories about the Pope. He’s the one who slipped that language in that decision. He’s the one that you`re quoting.

Please do not impugn nor insult my intelligence, thank you very much. You could easily make your case re: Hugo Black without resorting to a feeble attempt to belittle me. More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black, and it does not.

So, when we hear socialists going around, “separation of church and state”, they’re not quoting Jefferson,a Deist, and his letter to the Danbury Baptists. They’re quoting Hugo Black who was a member of the KKK.

No, they are indeed and intentionally quoting (if perhaps misinterpreting: that's a separate matter) Jefferson, just as Black did. The later deliberation by Justice Black does not supercede the direct reference to Jefferson, although I'll gladly concede that it does inform the debate.

After Jefferson wrote that letter? He attended morning prayers.Where? They freely held them in Congress then ! LOL

The Constitution and other documents of the time, as the men who wrote them (and they were men), were brilliant but flawed.

And here`s the rest of the letter from Jefferson:

" ... I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man,and tender you,for yourself,and your Religious Associations,assurances of my high respect and esteem."

Thomas Jefferson Jan.01,1802


Jefferson`s letter was written 14 years after the Bill of Rights were adopted. And several of the states ratifying the Bill of Rights actually had official state religions. If today's "separation of church and state" viewpoint existed back then, the Bill of Rights never would have been ratified by the states, including the states that had official religions.

Likely true; this concept, as many others, has evolved with time.

Know what`s worse than that? Take a tour of the Supreme Court building. In it you`ll find copies of the Decalouge,written in stone,carved into the building itself.

The US Constitution can only be modulated via the Amendment process , is not fluid and open to personal interpretations.If it were then it would be called a "living document". A living document means the original context are dead,therefore,the Constitution means whatever an unelected black robed judge says it means.That is a judicial oligarchy.

I take it you are a strict Constitutionalist? But as with any such document, there is margin for error and in part the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of its ability.

[The American Nightmare]

Excuse me for hijacking this fascinating discussion, but I am curious about something.

Why all the focus on whether someone is on the left or right? As far as I'm concerned, if someone is in the Klan, they can kiss my ass whether they are a donkey or an elephant.

The issue bothers me because it seems to promote a racist-like mentality. Take this example:

Robert Byrd is in the KKK. Just goes to show, those democrats hate black people.*

How is this line of thought any different from...

The DC sniper was black. Just goes to show, those darkies love to shoot people.

I can't help but feel that, much like racism, this twisted form of logic serves only to fuel hate, kinda like watching the O'Reilly Factor.

*I am aware that this statement was never specifically made, but many like it have.
Also, I realize that people who are right/left/black/white/male/female do this type of thing. It's not unique to any one sect.

[Ecstatic]

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Some context here that undercuts your argument. The specifics of L vs W was Providence's practice of soliciting ministers for prayers and then controlling the content of the prayer and had nothing whatsoever to do with sex.

I never said it did. Neither the context nor the author of a statement in themselves qualify nor obviate whatever truth there is in the statement. The principle Blackmun states here stands complete and does not require said context.

The Supreme Court allowed the phrase "one nation, under God" (a phrase that was added to the pledge in 1954 during the Cold War) to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance , reversing a district court decision that stated that the phrase "under God" in the pledge constituted "a profession of religious belief" in public schools and therefore violated the Establishment Clause.

Yes, I was born in 1951 so I am well aware of this, and I do not endorse the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test.

Clearly stated,the School cannot solicit a specific Rabbi,priest,minister or any other to recite a prayer. But student initiated prayer is permissable.

No argument there.

[Ecstatic]

Nicely done, Ecstatic. Just a thought on the side. The IRS refuses to recognize some religions as such and thereby establishes others by tax exemption. If the wall between religion and state were truely impermerable we would tax all churches.

Agreed! Good point, Trish.

Hardly.

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Individuals come together to bring into existance,make,establish their organization first,then are usually granted 501(C)3 status if they meet the rules of that section,which can even include corporations.Even Anton Levay`s Church of Satan is eligble for tax-exempt status.But they choose not to.

Good distinction. I should have picked up on the difference but it slid past me.

[Felicia Katt]

Excuse me for hijacking this fascinating discussion, but I am curious about something.

Why all the focus on whether someone is on the left or right? As far as I'm concerned, if someone is in the Klan, they can kiss my ass whether they are a donkey or an elephant.

The issue bothers me because it seems to promote a racist-like mentality. Take this example:

Robert Byrd is in the KKK. Just goes to show, those democrats hate black people.*

How is this line of thought any different from...

The DC sniper was black. Just goes to show, those darkies love to shoot people.

I can't help but feel that, much like racism, this twisted form of logic serves only to fuel hate, kinda like watching the O'Reilly Factor.

*I am aware that this statement was never specifically made, but many like it have.
Also, I realize that people who are right/left/black/white/male/female do this type of thing. It's not unique to any one sect.

good point, I mean, I certainly don't assume all white males in Canada are unable to argue civilly or hold or advance hypocritical or hateful viewpoints

FK

[trish]

White_Male_Canada writes:

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Perhaps on a literal interpretation of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution provides the seed from which later law grows. Current interpretations of this clause, at for now, keep prayer out of public schools.

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

By the way you never did answer my question.

I wrote:

White_Canadian_Male writes:

Quote:
Does the democrat party allow muslims to practice polygamy,including marriage to 9 year olds? No? Why how intolerant of you.


Does the republican party?????? ...

I assume the answer is “no”. So your point back there was, the Republican Party differs from the Democratic Party because they both are against polygamous marriages involving 9 years olds??? I’m guessing you’re real point is that you prefer a government that would allow the abuse of 9 year olds. Hey, now don’t go jumping to the conclusion that I’m making any judgments here…that’s your own guilty conscious talking.

bye-bye my little revisionist.

[White_Male_Canada]

there is margin for error and in part the role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution to the best of its ability

We must err on the side of caution and not on the side of judicial activism. That or RB Ginsburg is correct in her radical departure when she states explicitly, "would be bound by 'the Law of Nations,' today called international law.. At the outset, I should disclose the view I have long held: If U.S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others including Canada.."

…has evolved with time.

The “Living Constitution” approach is just the judicial extension of the broader perspective that truth is relative, not absolute. The Constitution is authoritative and Justices are charged to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. But because they don’t recognize the Constitution’s authoritative nature, they then can effect any outcome they want.

It is "We the People of the United States," not judges, to whom the Constitution looks to "form a more perfect Union." And not ginzberg`s radical departure when she said ,we the judges , "honor the Framers' intent 'to create [sic] a more perfect Union'".



Read the pre-ambles to various state constitutions lately ?

More to the point, nowhere have I quoted Hugo Black. I did quote Justice Blackmun. You're simply assuming that my reference to the separation of church and state stems from Justice Black

Black and Blackum in both instances were referring to the 1st. Blackmum was not referring to sexual intercourse as you so clearly implied when attempting to tie in the redefinition of marriage in the same paragraph,

" Denying certain civil liberties such as marriage ..."

[White_Male_Canada]

White_Male_Canada writes:

The State does not "establish" a specific religion or church by allowing it 501(C)3 status as much as it would "establish" tax-exempt charities. The State cannot establish an official religion or Church,like the Church of England,ergo the 1st amendment.

Perhaps on a literal interpretation of the establishment clause. However, the Constitution provides the seed from which later law grows. Current interpretations of this clause, at for now, keep prayer out of public schools.

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

By the way you never did answer my question.



bye-bye my little revisionist.

I revise a post at my whim,be it for grammatical errors,clarfifying or adding codicils as I see fit. Don`t like it ? Tuff luck then.

Look, I even leave,come back and re-post too !

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States permitted a student-initiated graduation prayer under a rationale compatible with reconciliationism in Jones v. Clear Creek Indep. Sch. Dist.,easily passing the Lemon test

.

[White_Male_Canada]

I assume the answer is “no”. So your point back there was, the Republican Party differs from the Democratic Party because they both are against polygamous marriages involving 9 years olds??? I’m guessing you’re real point is that you prefer a government that would allow the abuse of 9 year olds. Hey, now don’t go jumping to the conclusion that I’m making any judgments here…that’s your own guilty conscious talking.

bye-bye my little revisionist

You missed one of my posts.Kinsey didn`t exactly call it abuse and you know how much the left love kinsey.

"What is right for one individual may be wrong for the next; and what is sin and abomination to one may be a worthwhile part of the next individual's life."

Alfred Kinsey

Check out Table 34 of his book. He used pedophile research who kept detailed records of their child sex, including those of a baby of 5 months and a 4-year-old he sexually manipulated for 24 hours.

Kinsey wrote that the psychic damage to children who have sex with adults comes from the horrified reaction of adults, not from the sex itself.

Do we care to cling to Kinsey and his "studies" or are we going to cherry pick only the parts we like.

January 12, 2006
OTTAWA -- A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships. ``Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,'' says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act.
``The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.''


This before Canada took a closer step to less government in electing the Conservative party and thereby nulifying the "study" done by liberal hacks designed to give the Liberal party cover.

So drawn to it`s logical conclusion,the next aggreived minority to have it`s laws repealed would be those whose practice was incest,beastiality and sex with minors.

To subjectively draw a line in the sand and delcare,"we are ok,but THEM !? To Jail ! " is arbitrary,intolerant,subjective,and creates millions of demi-gods,who decide for the rest what is "moral" for some,illegal for the rest.