• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.[W126]

Bob N

Bob N

Weekend Political Pundit
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,803
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Bob N said:
Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion (Go to link.)

This was wrote on May 7, 2014, so I could not find if this was discussed.

Apparently Judge Thomas believes that the individual states have the right to establish a state religion; however, the gentleman is ramming straight on in to the fourteenth amendment and his hurting himself.
Click to expand...

well i didn't see it or missed the 14th in the link, is it there?..asking

as far as what Thomas says ..its correct.

after the constitution in american was ratified, states STILL had official religions until 1818 i believe was the last, and this was in america because the 1st amendment the constitution as well as the other did not apply to states, only the federal government.

it is the USSC which applied the Bill of Rights to the states some time after the civil war.

so is Thomas correct in what founders had intended and what the amendment says...... yes........but maybe he is only putting forth what was once actual law in the u.s...i don't know..

am i advocating for a state religion......NO.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Great - Thomas is yet another far right zealot wallowing in the mental delusion that we are still in the 1700's and nothing has changed since then.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

haymarket said:
Great - Thomas is yet another far right zealot wallowing in the mental delusion that we are still in the 1700's and nothing has changed since then.
Click to expand...

Please see the 1st amendment.

If the far left zealots are allowed to wallow in their mental delusions then so can Thomas.
although I don't see you harping on the far left zealots.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ludin said:
Please see the 1st amendment.

If the far left zealots are allowed to wallow in their mental delusions then so can Thomas.
although I don't see you harping on the far left zealots.
Click to expand...


Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Somerville said:
Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.
Click to expand...

Congress is the first word, ffs.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Somerville said:
Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.
Click to expand...

or abridging the freedom of speech
wow how did you miss that. Thomas is allowed to give his opinion based on the constitution.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Also what is it the 9th amendment where states are reserved the rights not specifically given to the federal government.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ernst barkmann said:
well i didn't see it or missed the 14th in the link, is it there?..asking
Click to expand...
From my link in post #1 of this thread.

Perhaps most shockingly, Thomas once again states his view that the First Amendment’s religious liberty provisions apply only to the federal government. In his view, the 50 states are free to “establish” any religion they want. In Thomas’ world, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was apparently never ratified.”
Click to expand...
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ludin said:
Please see the 1st amendment.

If the far left zealots are allowed to wallow in their mental delusions then so can Thomas.
although I don't see you harping on the far left zealots.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the knee jerk - "youse guys dose it too" response. Wonderful.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

bob n said:
from my link in post #1 of this thread.
Click to expand...

i have never hear of the 14th, but there has been talk of the 16 and 17th not property ratified.

One thing is known is that the southern states which passed the 14th were not filled with true southerns, but with northerners.

Southerns who held office before and during the civl war were not allowed to hold office again.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ernst barkmann said:
i have never hear of the 14th, but there has been talk of the 16 and 17th not property ratified.
Click to expand...

WOW!!!!! You have to wonder how that gigantic secret has been kept all these years?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

haymarket said:
Thank you for the knee jerk - "youse guys dose it too" response. Wonderful.
Click to expand...

you are the one that started it.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Somerville said:
Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.
Click to expand...

read the highlighted part
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ludin said:
you are the one that started it.
Click to expand...

How so? All I did was comment on the absurdity of the view of Thomas which is the subject of the thread.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Somerville said:
Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As a 'constitutional scholar', I'm positive that ludin will be able to explain Justice Thomas reasoning behind the assertion that each state has the right to establish a religion supported by its taxpayers, even when they are not members of that church or do not believe in worshipping any deity.
Click to expand...

Since you're a self-professed constitutional scholar, I'd ask - doesn't the US constitution devolve all powers not specifically assigned to the federal government to the discretion of the states? As such, since the federal government, through the Congress, is prohibited from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, doesn't that then devolve such power to the states?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Bob N said:
Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion (Go to link.)

This was wrote on May 7, 2014, so I could not find if this was discussed.

Apparently Judge Thomas believes that the individual states have the right to establish a state religion; however, the gentleman is ramming straight on in to the fourteenth amendment and his hurting himself.
Click to expand...

it's an argument against incorporation of the first amendment....based upon the premise that the text of the 1A insulates it from incorporation ( by specifically naming the body that is limited by it's existence as "Congress")

by incorporating the amendment, one actually adds in text that doesn't exist..without actually adding in the words.
( it now basically reads as "Congress, and the governments of the many States,... blablabla)

if the first Amendment is not incorporated, then there is nothing in the US Constitution that would bar a State from establishing a religion (though State constitutions might).

so yeah, it's all about incorporation...as incorporation is a doctrine (not a concrete precedent or law) there exists a few different outlooks on the matter.
 
Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Probably not, but pointing to the first amendment is not a good idea if you want to trash the idea of states being able to do so.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Clarence Thomas has always been, and will always be

a nutcake.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

I wonder what else Clarence Thomas thinks state's have the right to do. What will he come up with next?
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

ernst barkmann said:
well i didn't see it or missed the 14th in the link, is it there?..asking

as far as what Thomas says ..its correct.

after the constitution in american was ratified, states STILL had official religions until 1818 i believe was the last, and this was in america because the 1st amendment the constitution as well as the other did not apply to states, only the federal government.

it is the USSC which applied the Bill of Rights to the states some time after the civil war.

so is Thomas correct in what founders had intended and what the amendment says...... yes........but maybe he is only putting forth what was once actual law in the u.s...i don't know..

am i advocating for a state religion......NO.
Click to expand...

Thomas is - wrong of course. The US Constitution overrides state laws on the issue.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Bob N said:
Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion (Go to link.)

This was wrote on May 7, 2014, so I could not find if this was discussed.

Apparently Judge Thomas believes that the individual states have the right to establish a state religion; however, the gentleman is ramming straight on in to the fourteenth amendment and his hurting himself.
Click to expand...

Well imagine that. A website labeled "SECULAR PROGRESSIVE HUMANIST" has a problem with Clarence Thomas. Amazing, no?

But to set the record straight, acknowledging that the Constitution, as written and intended, DID allow state religions to be established is just good knowledge and accurate history, and not a personal promotion of how things should be. When I have heard Justice Thomas speak on that particular subject--he is an excellent and very well prepared speaker--he will always acknowledge that the little theocracies that existed when the Constitution was signed and ratified had all dissolved by the end of the Eighteenth Century. The Constitutional concept of liberty had worked in those states just like it worked elsewhere. And despite a nation that was mostly devoutly religious, including those in government, and most Christian, no new theocracies ever developed even though they were constitutionally legal.

It seems so difficult for those who lean left to appreciate that a free people will certainly make mistakes and do it wrong from time to time, but they almost always eventually get it right if allowed liberty to choose for themselves. And that is far preferable to giving such power to a central government when a mistake by that central government affects everybody and not just the few who make it.
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

Paperview said:
Clarence Thomas has always been, and will always be

a nutcake.
Click to expand...

that is a most nutty comment
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

jet57 said:
Thomas is - wrong of course. The US Constitution overrides state laws on the issue.
Click to expand...

that's interesting coming from a guy who thinks states should be able to ban guns or types of guns
 
Re: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion.

AlbqOwl said:
Well imagine that. A website labeled "SECULAR PROGRESSIVE HUMANIST" has a problem with Clarence Thomas. Amazing, no?

But to set the record straight, acknowledging that the Constitution, as written and intended, DID allow state religions to be established is just good knowledge and accurate history, and not a personal promotion of how things should be. When I have heard Justice Thomas speak on that particular subject--he is an excellent and very well prepared speaker--he will always acknowledge that the little theocracies that existed when the Constitution was signed and ratified had all dissolved by the end of the Eighteenth Century. The Constitutional concept of liberty had worked in those states just like it worked elsewhere. And despite a nation that was mostly devoutly religious, including those in government, and most Christian, no new theocracies ever developed even though they were constitutionally legal.

It seems so difficult for those who lean left to appreciate that a free people will certainly make mistakes and do it wrong from time to time, but they almost always eventually get it right if allowed liberty to choose for themselves. And that is far preferable to giving such power to a central government when a mistake by that central government affects everybody and not just the few who make it.
Click to expand...
I have a funny feeling that Judge Thomas is going to have a real go around trying to put those viewpoints through SCOTUS--in other words: getting his colleagues to agree with him.

If you think that this is constitutionally correct than why don't states implement this practice? What's stopping them? :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom