Jump to content
Mick Jagger

How Not to Post:Totally exempt religion from the authority of the national government

Recommended Posts

Show me where it says the lawmakers are limited only to the powers explicitly stated in the constitution.

 

In the words of Edmund Randolph at the Virgina Ratification Convention, "if [the Constitution's] powers were to be general, an enumeration would be needless."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably regret joining this discussion, but . . .

 

Mick Jagger - The government does not have any authority over religion. That seems to be what you're saying, repeatedly. In a way you are absolutely correct. Government cannot tell ministers what to include in their sermons (like they can in Turkey) and they cannot dictate specific beliefs. The government cannot censor a preacher for what is said on the pulpit (at least, I believe that's true) and the government cannot edit religious texts. The government cannot interfere with the appointment of religious leaders. And no church authority is automatically invested with governmental power (like in England).

 

But Mr. Jagger, you seem to agree with certain government powers to regulate certain behaviors that might be claimed as necessary by various religions. When confronted with the issue of polygamy, for example, you don't really respond, except to say something along the lines that religion is following one's duty to God. If religion is simply and ONLY the personal conscience of the individual following his/her Maker's will, then your argument makes some sense.

 

However, there are those individuals who believe their Creator tells them to marry underage girls and force them to have children against their will. This one person's conscience has now interfered with another person's right to liberty and free will. The Constitution was designed to "secure the blessings of liberty" to all -- and so the Government can regulate such action. The same is true of people who feel religiously motivated to hunt down abortion doctors or bomb buildings. Their ACTIONS pose a threat to the liberty of others as well as "domestic tranquility."

 

To quote an old saying (and I know it's not in the Constitution -- I believe it was Justice Brandeis), "My freedom to swing my fist stops when it meets your face." (Ok, not an exact quotation -- my apologies.) My freedom of religion is absolute UNTIL it interferes with another person's liberty and personal safety. The government cannot control what I think and believe, but they can regulate my actions in order to preserve "the general welfare."

 

As you define it, the government CANNOT regulate religion, as in the beliefs and thoughts of the individual. It CAN regulate particular behaviors, that may be done on religious grounds, as long as the regulation isn't targeted at only religious groups. For example, the abduction of 14-year old girls and subsequent rape is deemed illegal, whether it is for religious reasons or secular ones. Blowing up buildings or neglecting a child is illegal REGARDLESS of whether it is done in the name of religion or in the name of something else (or in the name of nothing). The government regulates actions, not beliefs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will probably regret joining this discussion, but . . .

 

Mick Jagger - The government does not have any authority over religion.

 

What exactly do you mean by the word "religion" and why do you claim the government has no authority over it?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly do you mean by the word "religion" and why do you claim the government has no authority over it?

 

My apologies -- I thought that was what you were arguing. I thought that was your point. I offered that first sentence simply as a paraphrase or your position, and then I went on to validate that position, to an extent.

 

Since I was mistaken, what has been your point? I must be a bit slow tonight (I have only just read the entire thread).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why aren't you banned yet?

'Mick Jagger" appears to be either a very stupid human or a very well-written bot.

 

I'm giving 4:3 odds in favor of the robot. Place your bets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. The government cannot censor a preacher for what is said on the pulpit

 

Provided it remains within the realm of religion/ethics/community/well doing and stays avoid of politics without some sort of ethical connection, that's true. The government can remove the non-profit status of congregations who chose to use their meetings for gains not related to religion/ethics/community/well doing. It's a fine line, and I'd be happy to elaborate it, and I doubt it really matters. It's just a point of clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed - I know I wasn't 100% accurate when I submitted that in my post, which is why the parenthetical remark. So, as long as the reverend, minister, rabbi, imam, priest, etc. remains "religious" and discusses religion, the government cannot regulate the content of that sermon.

 

Just an aside: when we debated separation of church and state in LD, we discovered that in Turkey, the government has final approval of what is in sermons. In some parts of Turkey, imams must submit the texts of their sermons/lessons to a government official for approval. What a different world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I WILL LEARN HOW MULTIQUOTE WORKS OR I WON'T POST

 

Why aren't you banned yet?

 

Cause I'm Mick Jagger.

 

Agreed - I know I wasn't 100% accurate when I submitted that in my post, which is why the parenthetical remark. So, as long as the reverend, minister, rabbi, imam, priest, etc. remains "religious" and discusses religion, the government cannot regulate the content of that sermon.

 

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

That seems to be what you're saying, repeatedly.

 

Every discussion of the relationship between the U. S. Government and religion established by the Constitution, should start with the fact that the Constitution established a government with no powers except for those enumerated in the instrument and that enumeration totally excluded religion from the cognizance of the federal authorities.

 

In a way you are absolutely correct. Government cannot tell ministers what to include in their sermons and they cannot dictate specific beliefs.

 

The Constitution established a government with enumerated powers and that enumeration excluded religion from the cognizance of the federal authorities.

 

The government cannot censor a preacher for what is said on the pulpit (at least, I believe that's true) and the government cannot edit religious texts. The government cannot interfere with the appointment of religious leaders. And no church authority is automatically invested with governmental power (like in England).

 

No civil authority over religion means no authority to compel and no authority to influence religion without compulsion.

 

But Mr. Jagger, you seem to agree with certain government powers to regulate certain behaviors that might be claimed as necessary by various religions

 

True. It's important to understand that the word "religion" as used at the time of the founding, in the "subject matter", by that I mean in the context of man made law, and the discussion thereof, regulating the relationship between civil government and religion, meant "the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it." The meaning of the word did not included "social duties" or duties owed to one's fellow man.

 

When confronted with the issue of polygamy, for example, you don't really respond, except to say something along the lines that religion is following one's duty to God.

 

At the time of the founding, the conventional view was that men had two basic types of duties. They had "social duties" and they had duties that were "owed to their Creator.'

 

"Social duties" were owed to society at large, that is to say they were owed to his fellow man. One's social duties were the obligations established by man made law to govern the relationships between men in the temporal secular realm.

 

A man's duties to his Creator were owed exclusively and absolutely to God and were to be discharged according to the dictates of conscience. Since God was Lord of Conscience, only he is permitted to influence a man's religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quintuple post? Don't do it again.

 

Please explain...

 

Anybody want to know the secret to ascertaining the meaning of the ambiguous words in the U. S. Constitution?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. I wish I were still NDD mod so I could get more fun out of this. Keep it up Stan.

 

And MJ, the key to figuring out the meaning of the words in the Constitution is to find the Constitution Code. You start by looking at every fifth word, then take the number of letters equal to the square of the third zero of the first mutation cipher devised by Ben Franklin. There's something about "lying with Charlotte", but if you've gotten that far, you're on the right track and can get the rest.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He actually posted 7 posts in a row, I just don't know anything above quintuple.

 

MICK JAGGER: Don't post 7 times in a row. Put it all in one message, dumb ass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He actually posted 7 posts in a row, I just don't know anything above quintuple.

 

MICK JAGGER: Don't post 7 times in a row. Put it all in one message, dumb ass.

Yeah, I saw those. It's not even a multiquote problem, he was doing it to respond to different parts of the same post.

 

And 7 would be septuple;

 

Single, Double, Triple, Quadruple, Quintuple, Sextuple, Septuple, Octuple=8, Nonuple=9, Decuple=10, Undecuple=11, and Duodecuple=12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Jagger - I supported your position, once I clarified it. Why did you feel the need to do a line-by-line "refutation" of something that supports your position? True, I didn't use the words you seem to want other posters to use, but the basis of the ideas was essentially the same: the government has no authority over religious belief or content, but it can regulate behavior and actions that impact the rights/liberties of other people. So -- why the line-by-line?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Jagger - I supported your position, once I clarified it. Why did you feel the need to do a line-by-line "refutation" of something that supports your position? True, I didn't use the words you seem to want other posters to use, but the basis of the ideas was essentially the same: the government has no authority over religious belief or content, but it can regulate behavior and actions that impact the rights/liberties of other people. So -- why the line-by-line?

 

Sorry, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with this statement?

 

...the dissent’s argument for the original understanding is flawed from the outset by its failure to consider the full range of evidence showing
what the Framers believed.

--MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's wrong with this statement?
It's a double-post.

 

Can we get a temp-ban on Mary Jane until he learns to have more than sentence per post? It's obviously a programming flaw, but even robots can learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced the... formation of our country. That influence is clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, which declared that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

 

The Ten Commandments established the duty not to have any other gods before a certain deity. The death penalty was imposed upon "He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone." That is hardly consistent with the principle that all men are created with an equal right to religious liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to come off sounding like a nerd trying to be bad ass, but don't churches allow children very limited amounts of alcohol for communion, whats to stop a church from allowing limited amounts of say coke? Or from hotboxing during a sermon claiming it is a ritual. I'm just curious how far you can push the small exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first white men to settle in the northern part of our country immigrated illegally, stole land from the Indians and killed their own children for not properly honoring their parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...