Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of church and state
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 313 (573006)
08-09-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
08-08-2010 8:49 PM


When Madison said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents, I don’t think he was saying that someday it will be okay as the population gets lazier and lazier.
My point wasn't that James Madison or any of the framers would have changed his beliefs over time. My point is that, 200 years later, his belief is largely irrelevant to present discussion. Maybe he presents an argument that is still valid today and so can be repeated, maybe it would be a nice rhetorical flourish to add this quote and his name in a speech or paper that your write, but no reasonable argument against social welfare can be, "well, James Madison was opposed to it." Any argument for or against it must rely on a logic analysis of facts that exist in the here and now.
I'll also add that maybe Madison wouldn't have changed his views on this, but I suspect (with no proof) that he would not have intended to tie the hands of future generations to prevent us from coming to our own conclusions.
That is the same for arguments about the actions taken by our governments. What the framers believed and what they intended are irrelevant. What is relevant is what they actually wrote in the Constitution itself and how they should be interpreted in light of facts known in the present and the intents of the people here and now.
-
... it needs to be acknowledged that separation of church and state has been an evolving process.
Sure, and I acknowledged it. And I think it's a good thing.
If that was your point, then we agree. I only chimed in because many people who try to make that point try to make it out as if it were a bad thing. I just wanted to express my opposition to the idea that the framers of the Constitution were Prophets from God who were delivering Holy Scripture to us that we dare not mess with. If that wasn't your point, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 08-08-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 1:11 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 58 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2010 8:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 313 (573014)
08-09-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
08-09-2010 12:19 PM


Chiroptera writes:
I'll also add that maybe Madison wouldn't have changed his views on this, but I suspect (with no proof) that he would not have intended to tie the hands of future generations to prevent us from coming to our own conclusions.
Actually we do have absolutely conclusive proof "that he would not have intended to tie the hands of future generations to prevent us from coming to our own conclusions."
A method to change the Constitution itself was included in the Constitution, plus the Laws passed by Congress and Treaties were included as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2010 12:19 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2010 2:00 PM jar has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 33 of 313 (573016)
08-09-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
08-08-2010 8:49 PM


Marc9000, I still don't understand what all the fuss is about. The framers never intended for Native Americans or Chinese immigrants to ever become citizens. They never intended women to be able to vote. They never intended black people to ever be free. Hell, the three-fifths compromise was stamped into the constitution to allow partial head count for black slaves.
None of that is relevant today.
So, I ask again. What the hell is your point? Do you even have a point? If you insist, I can start a whole new thread demanding we revoke all citizenship from Native Americans, Chinese Americans, and African Americans. I can even start a separate thread demanding we revoke women's right to vote since the framers never intended women to be able to vote.
Yes, your line of logic is a double edge sword.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 08-08-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 3:15 PM Taz has replied
 Message 60 by marc9000, posted 08-10-2010 8:07 PM Taz has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 313 (573020)
08-09-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
08-09-2010 1:11 PM


formal amendments
A method to change the Constitution itself was included in the Constitution, plus the Laws passed by Congress and Treaties were included as the Supreme Law of the Land.
Not a dispute of your point, but something I just want to add:
There are those who believe that the formal amendment process is the only legitimate way to adapt the Constitution to the new realities of our modern era, a position that I do not hold.
I would be more supportive of this idea if we had a tradition of frequently amending the Constitution to update it and had rewritten it a couple of times. But instead we have the tradition that the written document is a sacred text that can only be amended in very special circumstances. In that case, our evolving understanding of what the Constitution says is the only avenue that is allowed to us to keep it updated.
As I've said before, I don't have the luxury of living under the Constitution that I would like; I have to live under the one that we have. And that includes the manner in which Constitutional law is practiced in this country.
Edited by Chiroptera, : corrected a typo

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 1:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-09-2010 2:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 3:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 313 (573031)
08-09-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
08-09-2010 2:00 PM


Re: formal amendments
Absolutely correct.
Plus, the they made the Constitution but ONE of the three things that make up the Supreme Law of the Land.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2010 2:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 36 of 313 (573041)
08-09-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taz
08-09-2010 1:20 PM


The framers never intended for Native Americans or Chinese immigrants to ever become citizens. They never intended women to be able to vote. They never intended black people to ever be free.
I'd be curious to see if you had any evidence to support these statements. First, keep in mind that "the framers" were not of a single mind on anything. Many of them in fact were strongly in favor of abolition of slavery. There are several compromises in the Constitution evidencing the different positions. For example, Article I Section 9 of the Constitution prohibited Congress from eliminating importation of slaves before 1808. This was obviously in contemplation of Congress eventually abolishing slavery in time.
I'm not aware of any specific information supporting or refuting any of your other points, but I'd frankly be very surprised if all the framers were of one mind on any of them.
However, to the extent that your general point to Marc is that we should feel no particular compulsion to go beyond what the framers originally intended, you are obviously correct.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 1:20 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 3:47 PM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 313 (573049)
08-09-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Chiroptera
08-09-2010 2:00 PM


Re: formal amendments
There are those who believe that the formal amendment process is the only legitimate way to adapt the Constitution to the new realities of our modern era, a position that I do not hold.
That is obvious in the use of so many general terms. "Due process" is never defined. "Unreasonable searches and seizures" is never defined. "Cruel and unusual punishment" is never defined. "Speedy and public trial by an impartial jury" is never defined. The men who wrote the Constitution were not stupid. If they meant to lay down strict and specific terms, they knew how to do it. A President must be 35 years of age, a Senator must be 30 and a member of the House must be 25.
The only reasonable conclusion from this construction is that the framers intentionally left some things vague, subject to interpretations that future generations gave.
Specifically as applied to this thread, "establishment of religion" is never defined, nor is "the free expression thereof." If they meant to allow establishment of Christianity, or some version thereof, I have no doubt that they would have said that.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2010 2:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 38 of 313 (573057)
08-09-2010 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2010 9:26 AM


Re: Clarification
I don't see how a Deist could be a Christian...the two seem mutually incompatible, since a Deist believes, basically, that God kicked-off the universe and then stepped out for a protracted break, lettings things evolve.
A Christian believes that God intervened directly in the form of his son/himself/Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2010 9:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Huntard, posted 08-09-2010 3:42 PM Bikerman has not replied
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 11:02 AM Bikerman has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 39 of 313 (573061)
08-09-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Bikerman
08-09-2010 3:37 PM


Re: Clarification
Bikerman writes:
A Christian believes that God intervened directly in the form of his son/himself/Jesus.
Not if I interpret what Jar is saying correctly. But you'll have to ask him about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Bikerman, posted 08-09-2010 3:37 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 313 (573066)
08-09-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by subbie
08-09-2010 3:15 PM


subbie writes:
I'd be curious to see if you had any evidence to support these statements.
(1) The framers had slaves of their own.
(2) Even after the 14th amendment was passed, it took several more legislations to make Native Americans citizens of the US. I think that's abundantly clear.
(3) Women were finally given the right to vote in the 20th century. Again, I think that's obvious enough.
(4) Ever heard of the three-fifths compromise?
I'm not aware of any specific information supporting or refuting any of your other points, but I'd frankly be very surprised if all the framers were of one mind on any of them.
I'm not talking from an academic point of view. In fact, I have no intention of submitting a paper to be published any time soon. That said, look at my list above.
The other thing is this. There were in fact nazis that were against exterminating the Jews. So what if a few of them were against the general policy?
However, to the extent that your general point to Marc is that we should feel no particular compulsion to go beyond what the framers originally intended, you are obviously correct.
All I'm saying is marc seems to be strongly implying that since the framers didn't want to separate church and state therefore we should be a christian nation, I could just as easily say since the framers never allowed women to vote we should take away their right to vote and make them stay at home to make babies. And since Native Americans were never intended to become citizens, let's take away all their rights right now and ship them off to guitmo.
I'm simply surprised not many people have called marc on this very faulty logic of his and his ilk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 3:15 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 3:53 PM Taz has replied
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 11:14 AM Taz has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 41 of 313 (573068)
08-09-2010 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Taz
08-09-2010 3:47 PM


(4) Ever heard of the three-fifths compromise?
Of course. The fact that it was a compromise shows that not everyone agreed.
(Letting the rest of it go because it's largely off topic anyway, and we agree on your central point that we are not completely bound by what the framers originally intended.)

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 3:47 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 7:18 PM subbie has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 313 (573104)
08-09-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by subbie
08-09-2010 3:53 PM


subbie writes:
Of course. The fact that it was a compromise shows that not everyone agreed.
Um, no.
It was the north that didn't want them niggers to be counted as people at all. The south wanted to be able to count them fully for representation. So, the compromise wasn't because of some people having a conflict of conscience. It was purely political.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 3:53 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 7:51 PM Taz has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 43 of 313 (573105)
08-09-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
08-09-2010 7:18 PM


My last reply in this thread to this issue.
The question of counting slaves was purely a political one, but had nothing to do with race. Apportionment of representatives was based on population. Obviously, the south wanted more representatives, so they wanted slaves counted as persons, even though they weren't treated as persons in any other respect, and were considered property. The north wanted to keep southern representation lower, so they wanted the south to live with the consequences of slavery; if slaves were property, they weren't people.
Your suggestion that it was racially motivated is belied by the fact that the 3/5 rule applied to slaves, not blacks.
In any event, political or conscience, the compromise shows that the framers were not of one mind on the issue.
I will let you have the last word if you wish to.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 7:18 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 08-09-2010 8:28 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 44 of 313 (573108)
08-09-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by subbie
08-09-2010 7:51 PM


subbie writes:
Your suggestion that it was racially motivated is belied by the fact that the 3/5 rule applied to slaves, not blacks.
I'm not sure I can make you understand what I mean, so let me try anyway.
The 3/5 compromise allow us to understand how the framers were approaching the issue. The fact that they were able to compromise about treating an entire population of people should be very telling that they did not see these people as people.
It's like me saying "I love niggers". If you're going to accuse me of being racist, I'd just respond "but I really love them, how can I be a racist?"
In this particular case, we can't tell directly what the framers thought on the issue of slavery or human right, but we can tell from the way they approached the issue.
As I said many times in the past. A human right is a human right. It's not up for debate. It's not negotiable. And it's certainly not up for compromise. The framers may have been ahead of their time, but they're certainly not ahead of ours.
Edit.
This is why I get such a hard-on on the issue of gay rights. This is one issue I will not compromise for. No, seperate but equal won't cut it. No, don't ask don't tell won't cut it. No, I will not budge. Nothing short of complete equality will cut it.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by subbie, posted 08-09-2010 7:51 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 313 (573138)
08-10-2010 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
08-08-2010 8:49 PM


Biblically Based?
I came across an interesting letter from Thomas Jefferson:
I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. [...] What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 08-08-2010 8:49 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024