Scottville, Custer, Branch too. What's in a name...
What part of not endorseing or restricting religon do we not want?
I have seen several posts in the forum recently talking out both sides of the constitution, but not in a fair manor. So I guess I would like to ask some simple questions about how some feel about a simple set of words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So? If I as part of a swearing in ceremony, I chose to affirm rather than swear. Does this then spare the wraith of those who want the words in god we trust wiped off the currency?? Evidently not.. Yet lets but the shoe on my foot. If I chose to ask for a Koran or a Necronomicon because this was my particular religious belief.. would this appease the believers in a living constitution? Or do we just make it " Will you RTTYRTUYHSRGHSRT do the job?
I feel the conversation is not so much who may be offended by a religious reference, but who chooses to destroy someone else s sense of center.
Even if our fathers here believed in the Judeo Christian god for the most part, do all who wish to see the constitution changed to reflect our diversity want to completely discount the history of why we are here where many other deity less country's are no longer players in the world stage?
I think many of your pomp and circumstance rituals such as placing hands on the bible or affirming even are based to allow someone of no faith to actually carry the same weight in the eyes of a jury as someone who would just prefer we do something like this. A Witness to a crime goes before a judge and jury (its supposed to be of his/her peers) Do you Guido swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth so help you Guido? In some on here the answer would be hell no he has no credibility..
This is my argument at least in denoting the existence of a higher authority whether it be god demons, the wraith of the state in the process of the oath those listening to the testimony have some sense just by the way you respond to the words whether you are one to be believed. Whether you believe in anything but yourself you still have to in a civil society by obligated to something larger than your self otherwise throw out the government and just declare mob rules.
I get a kick sometimes, out of some peoples sense of political correctness. They are based on your own sense of faith or lack of it. In most cases just the fact someone appears in the realm of a court or a senate they are supposed to be reflecting the fact they believe in( or at least are going to play by) the rules of the system that placed them in power are they not?
I tried in this thread to ask most of it in the form of questions. Yet I know someone will try to interpret a tone of my questions. There isn't one. I am sure few on here know my faith or lack of one. They will make larger assumptions than myself on here. I can be very judgmental ( I would never be a good juror.) My intent is to get a sense for what part of our constitution some would chose to dismantle and wh? President Obama before being elected did an interview on PBR radio in which he described the U.S bill of rights (of which our constitution was framed around) as a bill of (negative rights). In that it didn't tell the government what it could do only what it could not do. Since I posted this in another thread I have heard many ranting yeah we need to change it all. So my question is? If the constitution isn't restricting that we can do. Why is it a threat that needs to be changed? Thanks for your time and thoughts...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
So? If I as part of a swearing in ceremony, I chose to affirm rather than swear. Does this then spare the wraith of those who want the words in god we trust wiped off the currency?? Evidently not.. Yet lets but the shoe on my foot. If I chose to ask for a Koran or a Necronomicon because this was my particular religious belief.. would this appease the believers in a living constitution? Or do we just make it " Will you RTTYRTUYHSRGHSRT do the job?
I feel the conversation is not so much who may be offended by a religious reference, but who chooses to destroy someone else s sense of center.
Even if our fathers here believed in the Judeo Christian god for the most part, do all who wish to see the constitution changed to reflect our diversity want to completely discount the history of why we are here where many other deity less country's are no longer players in the world stage?
I think many of your pomp and circumstance rituals such as placing hands on the bible or affirming even are based to allow someone of no faith to actually carry the same weight in the eyes of a jury as someone who would just prefer we do something like this. A Witness to a crime goes before a judge and jury (its supposed to be of his/her peers) Do you Guido swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth so help you Guido? In some on here the answer would be hell no he has no credibility..
This is my argument at least in denoting the existence of a higher authority whether it be god demons, the wraith of the state in the process of the oath those listening to the testimony have some sense just by the way you respond to the words whether you are one to be believed. Whether you believe in anything but yourself you still have to in a civil society by obligated to something larger than your self otherwise throw out the government and just declare mob rules.
I get a kick sometimes, out of some peoples sense of political correctness. They are based on your own sense of faith or lack of it. In most cases just the fact someone appears in the realm of a court or a senate they are supposed to be reflecting the fact they believe in( or at least are going to play by) the rules of the system that placed them in power are they not?
I tried in this thread to ask most of it in the form of questions. Yet I know someone will try to interpret a tone of my questions. There isn't one. I am sure few on here know my faith or lack of one. They will make larger assumptions than myself on here. I can be very judgmental ( I would never be a good juror.) My intent is to get a sense for what part of our constitution some would chose to dismantle and wh? President Obama before being elected did an interview on PBR radio in which he described the U.S bill of rights (of which our constitution was framed around) as a bill of (negative rights). In that it didn't tell the government what it could do only what it could not do. Since I posted this in another thread I have heard many ranting yeah we need to change it all. So my question is? If the constitution isn't restricting that we can do. Why is it a threat that needs to be changed? Thanks for your time and thoughts...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tuebor on -
Guido,
good post. I am going to think on this for awhile and get back to you.
-
Permalink Reply by Max on -
Guido, could you elaborate on what you mean (or did you mean that Obama has said this) that the Constitution was framed around the Bill of Rights?.
-
Permalink Reply by Guido on -
I think I still can find the text for then representative Obama,s interview on PBR but yes... He was discussion how he saw the bill of rights and the U.S constitution as a bill of negative rights. I'm sorry negative liberties not rights but listen to his words here on this U-tube post.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8
This is chilling to me as to what the man really stands for.
-
Permalink Reply by Guido on
-
I guess...I Hear his words a feel he understands the courts by themselves can not bring about that which he wants. Instead.. through community activism.. he wants the actual constitution re written to include a pro active government that can push its own purpose regardless of the old school constitution. Maybe Our founding fathers were all Tea baggers after all is the way I am reading this?
The basic pattern here.. is many things that were originally built into the bill of rights and constitution were for this very purpose to insure a none activist government as it is supposed to listen to the people. not to sway the public on its own esp if this (swaying) is to dismantle the system many in the world still envy.
-
Permalink Reply by Guido on
-
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/10/021903.php This is another view of some of Obama's ideology but I'm sure some will feel the is a far right perspective.
-
Permalink Reply by Montie on -
Not quite right, Max. The Constitution was written BEFORE the Bill of Rights. The framers were afraid that the Constitution would not be ratified by the states if certain rights were not spelled out as to what were specific rights.
the following is from Wikipedia:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
Created 1789
Ratified December 15, 1791
Location National Archives
Authors James Madison
Purpose To set limits on what the government can and cannot do in regards to personal liberties
In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of the Bill of Rights.[2]
The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise therof, forbids infringement of "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...", and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[3] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, after the American Civil War.
Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).
Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Though they are incorporated into the document known as the "Bill of Rights", neither article establishes a right as that term is used today. For that reason, and also because the term had been applied to the first ten amendments long before the 27th Amendment was ratified, the term "Bill of Rights" in modern U.S. usage means only the ten amendments ratified in 1791.
The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the original fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
Here are a couple of links providing further information
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights-1690
-
Permalink Reply by Montie on
-
Follow this from the government as to what George Mason, a delegate from Virginia had written in the Virginia Bill of Rights and which James Madison followed closely in drafting the first Ten Amendments to the Contitution.
I found sections 5, 13 and 16 especially interesting. Pretty much spells out what the Federal Constitution was meant to be, I thought.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
-
Permalink Reply by Montie on
-
Here is another interesting page that answers a number of questions pertaining to the Constitution and how it was instituted.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_q_and_a.html
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
I understand that Montie. I was asking guido for an explanation of what HE meant by that.
Max
-
Permalink Reply by Guido on
-
"I guess...I Hear his words a feel he understands the courts by themselves can not bring about that which he wants. Instead.. through community activism.. he wants the actual constitution re written to include a pro active government that can push its own purpose regardless of the old school constitution. Maybe Our founding fathers were all Tea baggers after all is the way I am reading this?
The basic pattern here.. is many things that were originally built into the bill of rights and constitution were for this very purpose to insure a none activist government as it is supposed to listen to the people. not to sway the public on its own esp if this (swaying) is to dismantle the system many in the world still envy."
Is this the part you wondered about my view Max or am I not making my self clear.?? I am not bent on being ugly here I just want to know who all thinks the constitution needs this type of house cleaning?
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Shoreline Media, Inc. on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
Badges | Report Abuse on Ludington Talks | Privacy | Terms of Service
