Under Jefferson the State became Church! - Page 3

The silenced majority · 12-17-07, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

Why should the intentions matter more than the principle of the law?

What is the principle for a law if there isn't reason for it to be legislated?

Quote:

What should intent be even considered a major source for guidance over the ideas?

Because I feel that they are inseparable; they work together.

We are in no way 100% bound by the customs and government of our framers. IMO if we are to take the ambiguous wording of the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion on it's face, some consideration should be given to how those who first penned the law dealt with matters relevant to religion and government themselves. I'm not saying that we need to follow their lead 100%. I'm just saying that the framers' actions, so closely removed from dealing with a real Church-state, would indicate that the secular zeal to remove all things relevant to religion from the public square we have today might be a tad bit much.

Quote:

If one focuses on even the simplest theories of freedom then it would not be exceptionally hard to grasp how to apply these rights. For instance, assume one accepts that one’s rights end where another’s begins. Therefore, the government’s only primary purpose (under Locke’s Social Contract) is to ensure that violations of your freedoms do not occur, and that you do not violate the freedom of others. One can then easily infer the state has a responsibility to protect individuals from coercion. In speech, this generally means that one can be prosecuted for speech that is strongly casually connected to coercion against others (inciting a riot, telling someone to kill someone else). The right to bear arms comes from one’s right to life (their right to protect themselves). We draw limits on this when there is a high probability that the arms one “bares” will harm others (nuclear technology, many explosives), or in a more restrictive definition, when that technology is clearly meant for offensive, and not defensive purposes (like a tank, or a Bazooka, or a M60 machine gun). The 3rd Amendments restrictions on quartering clearly springs from one’s right to property, and to choose who enters their dwellings. Collecting warrants for search and seizure is another extension of property rights. One can then go on and attach a right (life, liberty, or property) and see which principles the amendments are trying to keep from being broken.

I would say that the principle that many hold in regards to the 1st amendment pertaining to religion is flawed then.

Quote:

At the time, the majority of Americans would not have cared. The times allowed for them to get away with violating their own principles. They were living in a country in which white Christian males had almost all of the power, and it would be unlikely that the society would tolerate the objections of religious minorities.

What makes you think that the majority of Americans would care about the US House holding church services now? We're still an overwhelmingly Christian nation; the white dominance has been gradually replaced by minorities who are probably more so Christian anyhow....

Quote:

The times allowed for them to get away with violating their own principles.

Is it possible that what you've (collectively) assigned as being their principle isn't actually their principle?

Quote:

Would the Framers support the Patriot Act? Would George Washington support interventionist foreign policy? What about withholding habeas corpus? If you are against these policies then perhaps then you would be likely to have policy preferences similar the Founders. However, if you do support those policies you might be able to see the limits using their “intentions” has on modern day policy. (I specifically support none of the above policies, but do not do so because of the Founder’s thoughts on the matter.)

When I asked what your point was, I meant that our government has grown completely out of control & is something our framers would be appalled by. I kinda think you agree.

Quote:

Yes, they were hypocrites. That only suggests that using their “intentions” is not a wise way to apply the Bill of Rights. One would be better served by evaluating theories of freedom and the how each principle can ensure that such freedoms are preserved.

I'm not saying that the framers "intentions" are paramount and we must follow their every move; step for step. I'm just saying that when seeking to interpret the principle behind the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion, it's a good idea to to take some consideration in how the framers themselves
dealt with religion in politics; especially when they have been presented historically as being vehemently opposed to the infusion of government and religion.

dixon76710 · 12-17-07, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

A constitutional amendment for the First Amendment was passed. It is the 14th Amendment. It binds all the states to the Bill of Rights.

????? uuuh? it would be the 13th amendment that was passed to "abolish slavery".

Alex · 12-18-07, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

????? uuuh? it would be the 13th amendment that was passed to "abolish slavery".

We must be on different pages here. See post #16 please.

dixon76710 · 12-18-07, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

We must be on different pages here. See post #16 please.

# 16 is your post. SFLRN said

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

We make progress by expanding upon their ideas not their intentions. We expanded upon the idea of individual liberty to abolish slavery.

to which I responded in #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent.

to which you responded-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

A constitutional amendment for the First Amendment was passed. It is the 14th Amendment. It binds all the states to the Bill of Rights.

You should respond to your post when you intend to comment on your post.

Alex · 12-18-07, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

# 16 is your post. SFLRN said

to which I responded in #14

to which you responded-

You should respond to your post when you intend to comment on your post.

Right, my post was in response to the subject of this thread. You said: "By passing a Constitutional amendment, not by ignoring the framers intent."

The intent of the framers in relation to this thread was possibly to prevent a national religion via the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The 14th Amendment changed that and bound the states to the Bill of Rights. So I did respond to a post in relation to the thread, as is expected.

dixon76710 · 12-18-07, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

Would the Framers support the Patriot Act?

In the revolutionary war, we hanged illegal combatants. No trial by jury, no right to habeas corpus.

Alex · 12-18-07, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

In the revolutionary war, we hanged illegal combatants. No trial by jury, no right to habeas corpus.

And that was prior to the writing of the Constitution, so it is irrelevent to today. Beginning June 21, 1788 habeas corpus and trial by jury became rights. The American Revolution did not have rules like the Constitution to follow.

dixon76710 · 12-18-07, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

And that was prior to the writing of the Constitution, so it is irrelevent to today.

Relevent to the question asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFLRN

Would the Framers support the Patriot Act?

I think your on the wrong page again.

SFLRN · 12-18-07, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

???? No. The 14th amendment was'nt till 80 years later. The founders were all dead. What those who drafted the 14th amendment "intended" when they wrote "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" would be relevant.

I did not say that the Founders wrote the 14th. I am only asking you if you believe that they would have ever intended for their to be an amendment that would nationalize the Bill of Rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Kind of renders the words of the Constitution meaningless dont ya think? And it merely divides serious debate of ideas into those that require legislation and those that require Constitutional amendments.

No it would not render the meaning of the Constitution meaningless. It is quite clear when it says that Congress (meaning the national government) shall not do such and such. What theory of freedom or what social contract that is deemed to be most desirable would matter more than what some individuals intended.

SFLRN · 12-18-07, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

What is the principle for a law if there isn't reason for it to be legislated?

The purpose of any law (or at least what it should be) is to allow it to carry out its obligations under the social contract ( the protection of life, liberty, and property) so long as that law does not allow the state to violate its stated purposes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

What is the principle for a law if there isn't reason for it to be
Because I feel that they are inseparable; they work together.

We are in no way 100% bound by the customs and government of our framers. IMO if we are to take the ambiguous wording of the 1st amendment as it pertains to religion on it's face, some consideration should be given to how those who first penned the law dealt with matters relevant to religion and government themselves. I'm not saying that we need to follow their lead 100%. I'm just saying that the framers' actions, so closely removed from dealing with a real Church-state, would indicate that the secular zeal to remove all things relevant to religion from the public square we have today might be a tad bit much.

The reason there is "zeal" is to correct the past hypocrisy of other governments. There would not need to be such zeal if government officials had never violated the 1st at all. However, I can understand that in some cases we may be better served by not fully carrying out every single principle, because it could possibly cause a loss of freedom or a cost significant enough to justify only partially applying the principle. But it would be more prudent to make a cost-benefit analysis to determine our decision rather than using intentions as a guidepost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

What is the principle for a law if there isn't reason for it to be

What makes you think that the majority of Americans would care about the US House holding church services now? We're still an overwhelmingly Christian nation; the white dominance has been gradually replaced by minorities who are probably more so Christian anyhow....

The reaction would be very much like many American's fear/disdain for some of the members of the "Religious Right." Surely they might have many of the same general beliefs (religiously), but to see those beliefs perverted into political rhetoric appalls many Americans. Similarly, if you held Church in Congress many Christians would question the motives behind those actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

Is it possible that what you've (collectively) assigned as being their principle isn't actually their principle?

By their principle I meant what they wrote in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The silenced majority

When I asked what your point was, I meant that our government has grown completely out of control & is something our framers would be appalled by. I kinda think you agree.

I do agree. However, using their intent is (as a side-note) often done to justify certain policies or another and then not applied to other policies for the sake of political convenience.