Post from Dolomite -

Your welcome!

Boinggg. No, unless your ideology is that we shouldn't have religious posts on the GD Board.
I thought your original post said you hated this kind of thread, and, here you are yet again. Do you stop to look at traffic accidents as well?

Hell, this place is virtually [i]teeming[/i] with folks who don't share my exact ideology.
I don't see any of them whining about it, though! Nor will you see me whining about it!

Are you looking to get converted or something?

Eric The(That'sJustAJokeOfCourse-ButLetMeKnow...)Hun[>]:)]

Separation of Church and State?   YES
Separation of God and Country?    [b]NO[/b]
Separation of Man and faith?   your choice

Our country has been blessed and prospered due to it's connection to God.  
Someday we may fall as did Sodom and Gomorra(sp.) because of our selfishness and evil ways.

RANT OFF

I could be way off-base here, but my take is that the SOCAS was a direct response to the very real religious persecution that existed in the FF's native lands. Remember, none of the framers of the Constitution were native Americans. The fae Mayflower was full of expatriate English that were actually living in the Netherlands to escape the Church of England.
Does this matter?....Yes it does.
The constitution is a vibrant, living document able to bend to the will of it's current constituents, as was the intent of the framers. I think the SOCAS idea was a 'throwback' issue to make sure that the new USA did not become like other nations, filled with religious intolerance. Once again the framers got it right.
I will fight and die to defend the rights of my fellow Americans, no matter how offensive they may be.

[%(]

Except for the "living document" part, I agree with you.  The Constitution has provisions for how it can be modified, but "living document" has come to mean "interpret it any way you want, no matter what it originally meant".  I have a real problem with that.

Oh well, Troy, let's look at the larger picture by all means. Don't want to be too small in the scope of the argument before us!

Do you think that the Founding Fathers would have thought that a Christmas decoration on public grounds was a violation of the First Amendment, as some on this Board seem to believe?

And that such a display should be dealt with by cranking up the Federal government to tell a State government what they could and could not do viz-a-viz a publicly funded religious display?

Let's see what action you think they would endorse in such a situation.

Eric The(MissingNothing)Hun[>]:)]

By the way [b]Troy[/b], would the Founding Fathers anethema to publicly-run and financed schools extend to the University of Virginia, whose patron was Thomas Jefferson, himself?

I mean he was so proud of that little endeavor, he made certain that it appeared on his tombstone!

What of the other Founding Fathers' attitudes on public education?

Eric The(AnyIdeas?)Hun[>]:)]

i know it's been said here before, but i think it's worth repeating:  separation of church and state means nothing more than the state (in this case the federal government) have absolutely no connection with the churches/religions of the citizens.  no laws favoring one over another.  no laws supporting some, but not others.  no laws infringing the practice of [i]any[/i] religion.  no laws period.

the state has no business making any decisions regarding any religion.  period.

and for those of you who seem to think that the Constitution limits Congress but not the states from passing legislation regarding religion, i respectfully submit the following:

 (bold added by yours truly)

from:  [url]www.ifas.org/fw/9611/roots.html[/url]

also see [url]www.ifas.org/fw/9601/legal.html[/url]

Already mentioned, top of Page 2.  Please disregard the "DJoaS" comment for which I apologize a bit lower on that page.

Definitely [b]#1[/b]

Ladies and Gentleman -

The former vice president of the United states, and sore loser of the 2001 presidential election.....

Mr. Al Gore.

If that's so, then why is the United States both one of the most religious countries in the West and the world leader in scientific research?

Post from ARlady -

But don't you think that it's interesting that the very Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment and submitted it to the States for ratification, did not believe, at least in 1868, that it 'incorporated' anything.

Five years later, in the [i]Slaughterhouse Cases[/i], the US Supreme Court held that it didn't incorporate the 'Bill of Rights.'

It had to be left to Twentieth Century justices to determine that there was 'incorporation' of 'certain' parts of the Bill of Rights into the 'privileges and immunities' or the 'due process' clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court's test for choosing which provisions -along with all the accompanying baggage of decisions interpreting the federal rights -were incorporated has changed over time.  

The 'modern view', as reflected in cases such as [i]Duncan vs Louisiana[/i] (1968) is that provisions of the Bill of Rights 'fundamental to the American scheme of justice' (such as the right to trial by jury) were made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whereas other provisions (such as the right to a jury trial in civil cases) were not.

There are several possible positions that could be taken on this incorporation debate.  

First, one could argue that the Fourteenth Amendment (either through the Privileges & Immunities Clause or the Due Process Clause) made the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights enforceable against the States and no more.  This was the view argued for by Justice Black.  

Second, one could argue that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are essentially irrelevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that violations of the Due Process Clause are to be determined by a natural-law-like tests such as 'Does the state's action shock the conscience?' or 'Is the state's action inconsistent with our concept of ordered liberty'? This is the 'No Incorporation Theory' advanced by Justice Frankfurter, among others.  

Third, one could take a position such as Justice White did in the [i]Duncan[/i] case, that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates [u]certain[/u] fundamental provisions, but not other non-fundamental provisions.  This view is sometimes called the 'Selective Incorporation' Theory.  

Finally, one could adopt either a 'Selective Incorporation Plus' view or a 'Total Incorporation Plus' theory, as Justice Murphy's view in the [i]Adamson[/i] case.  This view holds that in addition to incorporating some or all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits certain other fundamental rights from being abridged by the States.

So aren't we all glad that the Congress that actually voted for the Fourteenth Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court that initially ruled on its scope, were just not as smart as Justice Black and the others!

BTW, for all you RKBA folks out there, the US Supreme Court has [u]never[/u] held the Second Amendment to be a 'fundamental' right incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and, lamentably, [u]it never will[/u]!

Eric The(SoWhoGetsToChangeTheRulesAtMid-PointInTheGame?)Hun[>]:)]

Not to be snide, but because (according to Garandman) all those Christians out there in USAville, really aren't?[:)]

No, really, because we have been very successful at separating religion from legislation.  If we had not, a lot of scientific study would be [i]severely[/i] curtailed, I believe.

The part that really gets me is that I am absolutely convinced that the reason the Second Amendment wasn't incoporated under [i]Cruikshank[/i] was racism.  Follow my logic:

In [i]Scott v. Sanford[/i], SCOTUS (albeit in dicta) listed the reasons that blacks couldn't be citizens.  The list included the right to assembly (a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment), the right to free speech (another fundamental right protected by the First Amendment) and the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went" (a fundamental right protected by the [i]Second[/i] Amendment).  The Dred Scott decision has since been reviled as one of the worst decisions ever reached by a Supreme Court.  But nobody ever comments on that listing of fundamental rights.

The Civil War occurs and the 13th Amendment gets passed freeing the slaves.  Immediately follows the "black codes" - laws that restrict the rights of blacks to vote, assemble, possess arms, work at certain jobs, testify against whites, etc.  The Fourteenth Amendment is then passed, ostensibly in direct response to the "black codes".  And the [u]Supreme Court[/u] in the [i]Slaugherhouse cases[/i] followed immediately by [i]US v. Cruikshank[/i] eviscerate the protections of the 14th, even when stating (again, in dicta) "the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose" was what the Second Amendment protected!  Their reasoning?  It only prohibits [i]Congress[/i] from infringing it.  The [i]states[/i] are free to do so.  Of course!  If the [i]states[/i] couldn't do it, blacks would be armed!  Can't have that!

Damn that makes me angry.  And I think you're right, Eric, the Supreme Court isn't ever going to reverse itself on that one.  Alexis de Tocqueville might be right, maybe we will just fold under the constant pressure of myriad, ever more restrictive laws.  Sooner or later I think some gun owners are going to say "Enough!" (whereupon they'll pass legislation taking them all, and de Tocqueville's prophecy is complete.)

Well, OF COURSE there are false professors of christianity.

Just like there are false professors of being a medal of honor winner. Or being a navy seal. Or having gradjitated from high school.

But let me address the issue at hand...

It is NOT only Christians who have made scientific discovery. MANY THOUSANDS of non-Christians have benefitted the world immensely thru scientific discovery. As have many thousands of Christians.

But generically speaking, i do believe that the acknowledgement of the existence of God DOES enhance and further scientific research.

Which is a consistent belief.

If you believe that God created life, then you also beleive that He AOLNE holds the keys to unveiling its secrets. And allowing its secrets to be discovered.

Further, a rejection of His existence would increase the likelihood that God would disallow any person or culture who rejects His existence to be "blinded" from further scientific discovery.

Stated another way, a rejection of truth at ANY level will likely cause blindness to truth at a higher level. And acknowledgement of the existence of God, whether you are a Chrsitian or not, is to my way of thinking, the MOST BASIC acknoledgment of truth imagineable.

Let me be more specific - a belief in God does not inhibit scientific research on the part of the researcher.  The upper management of the various organized religions acting (they believe) on God's behalf through legislation (or Inquisition) tend towards scientific suppression.  In this country there is some opposition by avowed Fundamentalist Christian organizations against certain types of research (oh, stem-cell research comes immediately to mind) on a religious basis.  They want it all banned, and were not happy with a simple cut in Federal funding.

It never will?  Never is a long, long time... [;)]

Again, back to our conversation yesterday, just because someone CLAIMS to be acting on the behalf of God DOES NOT make it so. Lots of people claim LOTS of things. And the world is FULL of liars.

Speaking generically, a Biblical Christian would have the GREATEST interest in the world in furthering scientific reasearch to the greatest possible moral limits. Biblical Christins commit their entire lives to the pursuance of truth - on EVERY subject. Mostly because "truth" is one of the greatest charachteristics of God. Pursuing truth IS pursuing God.

With regard to stem cell research, many Biblical Christians (myself included) are concerned that we tread into areas that are God's alone. Its a judgemnt call, no doubt.

From another angle, it cannot possbily be right to intentionally terminate one life for the hopes of saving another life.

Right now, stem cell research offers ONLY hope that some answers may be found. It may turn out to be a "dry well."

We presently have enuf stem cells to conduct ALL the research that needs to be done. For my money, I say go fo it. With EXISTING stem cell lines ONLY. God will hide from man anything that He wants hidden.

But I cannot support turning the multi-billion $ a year abortion industry into a raw materials supplier for stem cells. That's just too Buchenwald-ian.

As a rule, Biblical Christians support ALL scientific research, up to the point that a Biblical principle will be violated. Scientific research actually validates the complexity of life, and gives support for the need of an intelligent master designer. Something greater tha "random selection /rejection." (NOT interested in having a E vs.C debate)

Man, there must not be many Christians in this country then!

Other than that, fair enough!

In part, that's true.

Mostly, its a matter of the ones who ARE Christians NOT being Scriptural in their beliefs and actions.  Myself included. (personally, I think i got the beleifs part down, its the "actions" part that I suck at [BD] )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:

The constitution is a vibrant, living document able to bend to the will of it's current constituents, as was the intent of the framers.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Ladies and Gentleman -

The former vice president of the United states, and sore loser of the 2001 presidential election.....

Mr. Al Gore



Wow, I always thought of myself as a forward thinking, staunch independant. Set in my ways with gun ownership and 'do not screw with me or mine' forming the platform of a healthy mistrust of our federal government.
But now, with the ever so insightful musings of a gentleman on this post, I realize that I must have been wrong. I deeply apologize to all of my Tennessee constiuents and friends over my  loss and humiliating personal reaction to it. (The beard, I'm talking about the beard) In short, thank you garandman. Your views and witticisms, while as antique as your choice of weapon, are none the less respected.

Dude -

The "living document" CRAPOLA is the MOST fequently used argument to say that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard, and that the peasants should be disarmed.

Aside from being unConstitutional, the "living document" feces has NEVER been shown to be the Founders intent. Quite the opposite.

Either your just new to Constitution interpretation, or your a troll.

Hang around here with an open mind, and learn a few things.

Understand that I am working from a college level (many years ago), but my interpretation is that the Constitution is able to be changed/ ammended by several methods including ratification of 3/5's of the states or by a particular percentage of the congress. This is what I meant by a living document. Would you like to argue the merits of a 'reworkable' Constitution? I don't see how you can argue against the adaptable nature of the Constitution. Maybe you should take some of your own advice and "hang around here with an open mind...". It seems apparent that you are confusing the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution with the document and Articles themselves.
How can any non-troglodite infer that this incredible document is not an adaptable, living work that will outlive us all?
Pull your head out and realize that I am in favor of gun ownership by everyone, carried by everyone. One of the greatest attributes the Constitution is the very ability you are dismissing. Do you realize that this is one of the few countries in which private gun ownership is addressed in it's Constitution? In addition to this item being specifically addressed, the ability to change the Constitution allows us gun owners to lead a change in the Constitution to further protect our rights. Ironic isn't it? You are arguing with the very instrument that allows an increased protection for all of us, you included.
If the FF did not intend the original document to be changed, how do you explain the inclusion of specific instructions on how to change the Constitution?
I hope I have misread your replies, or you have misstated your ideals. If not, I'm afraid that you are portraying the exact type that all of the anti-gun idiots love to trot out as singular thinking, troglodyte types. Please tell me that I am wrong in this interpretation. If I am, I apologize.

[%(]  

You have misread my replies. BADLY.

You also went full-auto on the use of the word "troglodyte." Which I found rather amusing.

What you meant by the use of the term "living document" is IRRELEVANT. "Living document" has its OWN meaning, and it means "it can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, at any given point in time." Which is pig feces.

If you meant to point out that the Consituttion can be AMENDED, then that is what you should have said. You didn't. You used the Leftists term "living document" which they use to mean the Constitution can basically be scrapped.

Words HAVE meanings. When you misuse words, don't fault others for misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

The Second Amnedment will NEVER mean anything other than you and I are GUARANTEED for all time, regardless of ANY amendemnt, the right to keep and bear arms.

So, if I misunderstood you, I apologize. But you have to realize what the words you are using mean.

Wow, we are kind of monopolizing the thread. lol
Believe me, I do not have a leftist bone in my body. My stance that the Constitution is living is based completely on the ability to change it to meet todays needs.
I do not mean an personal attacks, just wondering about the ideas presented. And on a personal note, I am experiencing a decrease in mental function and cognizance(sp?) due a dramatic increase in intracranial pressure (having brain surgery Friday Nov. 30th). You would not believe how long it takes to write on of these responses. In short, an incorrect use of a word is excusable, hopefully.
I really enjoy the exchange of ideas, but I need to keep the air clear on what I believe.


[%(] < A picture of my nuerosurgeon LOL

Peace, Wiggy.

Hope the brain thing turns out OK.

[:D]

 Hate to disagree with you on this one, Garandman, but that's what it [i]used[/i] to mean.  It doesn't mean that now, or at least current law doesn't support it.  Violate an existing gun law (pick any one that you think infringes on your Second Amendment right to keep and bear), try that argument in any court of law in the land, and you will get to say "hello" to your cellmate(s).

It's a sad fact, but it's a fact.  I'm with Ericthe(usuallyrightonlegalstuff)Hun on this.  The Emerson decision was a "feel-good" for us, but I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever overturn 70+ years of crappy Federal, State and municiple legislation on 2nd (and 14th) Amendment grounds.

If de Tocqueville is right, sometime in the not too distant future our "right to pursue happiness" will vanish too.  Happiness will be defined and distributed by the government.  It'll be done "for the children".  (Edited to add:)  Oh, and the legislation will get a majority vote, just as required.

KB -

There is a dfference between what the Second ACUTALLY means, and what SCOTUS et al SAY it means.

CONTUS means what it means. Some Johnny-come-lately in a robe who comes along CANNOT actually change what it means.

And YES, you can take that to mean that I consider ANY defintion, other than the one I provided above, to be unConstitutional.




The WHOLE PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights was to put in writing rights that pre-exist  the Constitution, even codified law itself. Call them naturalrights, God-givenrights, whatever you wish. A person has those rights SIMPLY becasue they are alive.

To think that SCOTUS can come along and re-define my right to keep and bear arms is short-sighted in the extreme. if they can re-define it, it AIN'T a "right."  then its a priviledge.

However, you can bet your bottom dollar that Emerson won't see SCOTUS.  And no court has held that the 14th applies to the Second.  In fact, more than one decision has said that it does [i]not[/i].  As far as [i]US v. Miller[/i] is concerned, it ruled very narrowly on what constituted a "militia weapon", but said exactly nothing about individual rights.  If we have an uninfringeable individual right to keep and bear arms, then how can the length of a shotgun barrel be used to prevent our possession of it?  Re-read the Emerson decision of the 5th Circuit - their analysis of [i]Miller[/i] points out that [i]Miller[/i] didn't address the question.

I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation, I'm just saying that from a legal perspective your interpretation won't keep you out of jail.  

What good is a right if your society (by means of law) rejects it?  You're more than welcome to go to jail for your convictions (no pun intended) but you won't be able to exercise your rights in there either.  Nor when (if) you get out.

The people of the United States threw away their right to keep and bear arms right about 1876.  It is only now that we're really beginning to notice.