I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    ... at the state capital.


     


    Hawkeye Revival: Iowa Governor Formally Asks His State To Pray And Repent


    n a move straight out of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s playbook, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad issued an official proclamation instructing citizens to pray and repent and presided over a revival event on the grounds of the state capitol.


    In April, Branstad signed the proclamation urging everyone in the state of Iowa to repent and pray daily. He also invited them to join in a day of prayer, fasting and repentance on July 14 on the grounds of the state capitol.


    That proclamation says:


    “Now, Therefore, I, Terry E Branstad, as Governor of the State of Iowa, do hereby invite all Iowans who choose to join in the thoughtful prayer and humble repentance according to II Chronicles 7:14 in favor of our state and nation to come together on July 14, 2014.”


    He added at the signing that his action was in line with George Washington, who started the tradition of presidents formally asking Americans to pray and repent.


    In keeping with the selected Bible passage, the revival at the statehouse began at 7:14 a.m. on the 14th and ran until 7:14 p.m. The Des Moines Register reported that “hundreds of Christians” attended the rally. Branstad and Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds both addressed attendees.


    “We have a long and proud tradition in America of having leaders who recognize this is a nation that has been truly blessed by God from the very beginning,” Branstad said.


    An event attendee, Sara DeMeulenaere of Fort Dodge, told the Register that the event “is about repentance and people coming together and unifying the body of Christ for our nation ... and bringing righteousness and justice back to our governing sectors and our lives.”


    The Iowa event, “Pray 7/14/14,” was one of several rallies held at statehouses nationwide that day. (Tennessee was also among the participants).


    So much is wrong here from both a historical and church-state separation perspective. First, as Americans United has detailed many times, George Washington’s level of religious devotion remains unclear. Yes, he did sign a thanksgiving proclamation in 1789, but there is no evidence that he ever held any kind of official prayer rally.


    And although Washington was nominally an Anglican, it seems he flirted with deism. He never wrote as eloquently about religious freedom as Thomas Jefferson, but that doesn’t mean Washington would have been a Religious Right ally or a fundamentalist Christian. Far from it.


    As such, it seems Branstad’s attempt to link himself with Washington is disingenuous.


    More importantly, it is wildly inappropriate for a sitting governor to encourage all citizens to pray and repent. A governor’s proclamations may not be legally binding, but one like Branstad’s sends a clear message: atheists – and even non-Christians – are not favored by his administration.


    The timing of this “Pray 7/14/14” event is also pretty suspect. Branstad is up for reelection this year, so it’s safe to say he’s wearing his faith on his sleeve to score cheap political points. Faith is too important to be devalued by political stunts and Branstad should know better.


    Branstad may think his proclamation will unify Iowans, but in reality it will further divide various groups who already don’t see eye-to-eye. As he seeks a sixth (!) term, he’d be wise to drop the evangelist role and focus on public policy instead of prayer.


    https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/hawkeye-revival-iowa-governor-formally-asks-his-state-to-pray-and-repent

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    Well, I guess this has already come and gone since the proclamation named July 14th as the day for this prayer revival.

    It is amazing that an elected official, the Governor no less, would do this. He may not be a lawyer, but somewhere he must have heard of the separation of church and state.

    I hope more people celebrated Bastille Day than participated in this politically motivated act on July 14th. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to sprague1953's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, I guess this has already come and gone since the proclamation named July 14th as the day for this prayer revival.

    It is amazing that an elected official, the Governor no less, would do this. He may not be a lawyer, but somewhere he must have heard of the separation of church and state.

    I hope more people celebrated Bastille Day than participated in this politically motivated act on July 14th. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right. So, we are supposed to pay for birth control and abortions, but a proclamation urging people to pray is over the line.

    do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC  tells you to say?

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hypertext. Show hypertext's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sprague1953's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, I guess this has already come and gone since the proclamation named July 14th as the day for this prayer revival.

    It is amazing that an elected official, the Governor no less, would do this. He may not be a lawyer, but somewhere he must have heard of the separation of church and state.

    I hope more people celebrated Bastille Day than participated in this politically motivated act on July 14th. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right. So, we are supposed to pay for birth control and abortions, but a proclamation urging people to pray is over the line.

    do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC  tells you to say?

    [/QUOTE]


    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    How horrible! 


    Next thing we can expect is some stupid liberal governor to invoke the Bible and his religion to justify housing thousands of illegal aliens in the state.


    Eyes filling with tears as he quoted Scripture on Friday, Governor Deval Patrick strongly defended his plan to provide temporary shelter for up to 1,000 children who have crossed the US-Mexico border illegally and said he had identified two possible locations for them, one in Western Massachusetts and another on Cape Cod.


    The facilities are Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Camp Edwards in Barnstable County, which housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The bases are being submitted for federal approval, and only one will be selected, said Patrick.



    Speaking at a news conference, the governor sought to move the issue beyond the caustic national debate over immigration and used the Bible to frame the problem as a moral one. He seized on the influx of migrant children in a way that other governors have not, showcasing the sort of oratory that helped propel him to office in 2006.



    “I believe that we will one day have to answer for our actions — and our inactions,” Patrick said, choking up as he was flanked by religious leaders, including Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.


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


    Meanwhile what is the real moral question here?


    What about the people that live here legally and have to live with the consequences of Obama's incompetence and Mini-me's phony religious attitudes? There are already people that have suffered at the hands of people they have let into the country under the guise of that 2008 law. No one is allowed to see who is being classified for processing under that law and even Congress members are not allowed to see what is going on.


    And here at BDC we have the elegant display of hypocrisy from the moronbat side of the fence, ripping one Republican governor for some cornball declaration while the glorious governor here in MA whips out the Bible and local religious leaders.


    Mini me cannot be gone soon enough.


    Hey Governor Mini-me - why don't you have some of the "migrant" "children" put up at your 70 acre estate out west??


    NO, not in YOUR BACK YARD?? 


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How horrible! 

     

    Next thing we can expect is some stupid liberal governor to invoke the Bible and his religion to justify housing thousands of illegal aliens in the state.

     

    Eyes filling with tears as he quoted Scripture on Friday, Governor Deval Patrick strongly defended his plan to provide temporary shelter for up to 1,000 children who have crossed the US-Mexico border illegally and said he had identified two possible locations for them, one in Western Massachusetts and another on Cape Cod.

     

    The facilities are Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Camp Edwards in Barnstable County, which housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The bases are being submitted for federal approval, and only one will be selected, said Patrick.

     


    Speaking at a news conference, the governor sought to move the issue beyond the caustic national debate over immigration and used the Bible to frame the problem as a moral one. He seized on the influx of migrant children in a way that other governors have not, showcasing the sort of oratory that helped propel him to office in 2006.

     


    “I believe that we will one day have to answer for our actions — and our inactions,” Patrick said, choking up as he was flanked by religious leaders, including Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.

     

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

     

    Meanwhile what is the real moral question here?

     

    What about the people that live here legally and have to live with the consequences of Obama's incompetence and Mini-me's phony religious attitudes? There are already people that have suffered at the hands of people they have let into the country under the guise of that 2008 law. No one is allowed to see who is being classified for processing under that law and even Congress members are not allowed to see what is going on.

     

    And here at BDC we have the elegant display of hypocrisy from the moronbat side of the fence, ripping one Republican governor for some cornball declaration while the glorious governor here in MA whips out the Bible and local religious leaders.

     

    Mini me cannot be gone soon enough.

     

    Hey Governor Mini-me - why don't you have some of the "migrant" "children" put up at your 70 acre estate out west??

     

    NO, not in YOUR BACK YARD?? 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Home run of a post. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    Government sanctioned prayer revival, take two:


    "Whereas Each American has the freedom to worship and pray as he or she desires; and "Whereas This day provides all Massachusetts citizens the opportunity to join together in prayer to give thanks for our blessings, to ask for healing, to ask God to guide our leaders and to bring peace to our nation and the world; and Whereas “One Nation, Under God”, is the theme of this year’s National Day of Prayer, inspired by Psalm 33:12, Now, Therefore, I, Deval L. Patrick, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby proclaim May 3rd, 2012, to be


    Massachusetts Day of Prayer


     


    And urge all the citizens of the Commonwealth to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance."


     


    The only difference is the Governor of Iowa stuck around and attended a prayer rally with fellow citizens...Deval wouldnt be caught dead actually mingling with the commoners; he was out at his vacation estate with the liberal elite...


     


     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

     Government sanctioned prayer revival, take three:


     


    "Presidential Proclamation -- National Day of Prayer, 2014
     
    BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


     


     I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2014, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I join all people of faith in asking for God's continued guidance, mercy, and protection as we seek a more just world."


     


    Obama was unable to attend a prayer rally on May 1, but he celebrated by saying a silent prayer as he was putting for par in the 18th Hole...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to hypertext's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to sprague1953's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, I guess this has already come and gone since the proclamation named July 14th as the day for this prayer revival.

    It is amazing that an elected official, the Governor no less, would do this. He may not be a lawyer, but somewhere he must have heard of the separation of church and state.

    I hope more people celebrated Bastille Day than participated in this politically motivated act on July 14th. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Right. So, we are supposed to pay for birth control and abortions, but a proclamation urging people to pray is over the line.

    do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC  tells you to say?

    [/QUOTE]


    "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

    [/QUOTE]

    I guess it's the latter. Alrighty then.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    ron,


    "do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC tells you to say?"


    I find you to be a reasonable guy to debate with as long as you were treated with respect. That is one reason among the self-proclaimed conservatives I respect you. For what it is worth, I even like you.


    In this case I did not have to read a thing except the article before I wrote my post.


    Can you possibly conceive that I formed my opinion without any help from anybody nor any organization? 


    I believe it was absolutely totally wrong to call for a government sanctioned prayer revival.


    I also believe it was wrong for Patrick to whip out a Christian Bible for the same reason.


    We either have separation of church and state or we do not.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    Hansoribrother,

    "Next thing we can expect is some stupid liberal governor to invoke the Bible and his religion to justify housing thousands of illegal aliens in the state.


    Eyes filling with tears as he quoted Scripture on Friday, Governor Deval Patrick strongly defended his plan to provide temporary shelter for up to 1,000 children who have crossed the US-Mexico border illegally and said he had identified two possible locations for them, one in Western Massachusetts and another on Cape Cod."

     

    I believe Patrick was totally wrong here. He absolutely should have not invoked the Bible, his religion as well as quoted scripture on Friday for the same reason the other governor never should have issued a proclamation for a government sanctioned prayer revival.

    Separation of church and state. It should not be a doctrine to follow only when it is convenient to follow it.

    Both governors should be ashamed of themselves for using faith for political reasons.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to sprague1953's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, I guess this has already come and gone since the proclamation named July 14th as the day for this prayer revival.

    It is amazing that an elected official, the Governor no less, would do this. He may not be a lawyer, but somewhere he must have heard of the separation of church and state.

    I hope more people celebrated Bastille Day than participated in this politically motivated act on July 14th. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Show me where separation of church and state is in the constitution.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to sprague1953's comment:


    ron,


    "do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC tells you to say?"


    I have always found you a reasonable guy to debate with as long as you were treated with respect. That is one reason among the self-proclaimed conservatives I respect you. For what it is worth, I even like you.


    In this case I did not have to read a thing except the article before I wrote my post.


    Can you possibly conceive that I formed my opinion without any help from anybody nor any organization? 


    I believe it was absolutely totally wrong to call for a government sanctioned prayer revival.


    I also believe it was wrong for Patrick to whip out a Christian Bible for the same reason.


    We either have separation of church and state or we do not.




    The government does this kind of stuff all the time. Heck, I've even seen president Obama participate in some of them. My suspicion is that because this is a Christian event, it raises your hackles.


    now, to the talking points issue: maybe you don't personally get or pay attention to talking points. Others who post here do. It was snarky, and for that I apologize. However, the progressives in general are on the warpath against settled Christian doctrine, intending to replace it with progressive doctrine. Your acceptance of this agenda, limiting the religious freedom of some Americans in favor of others, this supposed seperation of church and state comes from somewhere. You didn't arrive at your belief set all on your own. It was influenced by progressive talking points, perhaps indirectly.


    The democrat party has decided to take the side of the anti religionists, as witnessed by their ham-fisted attempts to shoe-horn recognition of god into their convention, which was met with boos and howls.  That's not a neutral " live and let live" policy.


    Those are the types of talking point that make their way into your brain that cause you to think taking a slam against Christians is ok.


    we don't have separation of church and state. It is to be found nowhere in the constitution.  Therefore, It is not a principle that is based on sound law.  The principle in the constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. This is why we have insanities like atheists putting up anti-Christian posters during Christmas.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to sprague1953's comment:


    [QUOTE]


     


     


    ron,


     


    "do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC tells you to say?"


     


    I have always found you a reasonable guy to debate with as long as you were treated with respect. That is one reason among the self-proclaimed conservatives I respect you. For what it is worth, I even like you.


     


    In this case I did not have to read a thing except the article before I wrote my post.


     


    Can you possibly conceive that I formed my opinion without any help from anybody nor any organization? 


     


    I believe it was absolutely totally wrong to call for a government sanctioned prayer revival.


     


    I also believe it was wrong for Patrick to whip out a Christian Bible for the same reason.


     


    We either have separation of church and state or we do not.


     


     




    The government does this kind of stuff all the time. Heck, I've even seen president Obama participate in some of them. My suspicion is that because this is a Christian event, it raises your hackles.


     


     


    now, to the talking points issue: maybe you don't personally get or pay attention to talking points. Others who post here do. It was snarky, and for that I apologize. However, the progressives in general are on the warpath against settled Christian doctrine, intending to replace it with progressive doctrine. Your acceptance of this agenda, limiting the religious freedom of some Americans in favor of others, this supposed seperation of church and state comes from somewhere. You didn't arrive at your belief set all on your own. It was influenced by progressive talking points, perhaps indirectly.


     


    The democrat party has decided to take the side of the anti religionists, as witnessed by their ham-fisted attempts to shoe-horn recognition of god into their convention, which was met with boos and howls.  That's not a neutral " live and let live" policy.


     


    Those are the types of talking point that make their way into your brain that cause you to think taking a slam against Christians is ok.


     


    we don't have separation of church and state. It is to be found nowhere in the constitution.  Therefore, It is not a principle that is based on sound law.  The principle in the constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. This is why we have insanities like atheists putting up anti-Christian posters during Christmas.  


    [/QUOTE]

    ron,


    First, thanks for the apology. You are one of the few posters that will offer one. One of the reasons I respect you.


    Now, at the top of your post, you wrote, " My suspicion is that because this is a Christian event, it raises your hackles.".


    First, I made the decision awhile ago to not talk about my own spiritual beliefs online. This came to me partly after watching self-proclaimed Christians on this forum throw the poster's Christian beliefs into his face when they were debating. That is for example during an heated exchange watching two or more Christians insult and attack one another and each accuse the other of not acting in a Christian manner. That was awful an about it for me. I personally think one's beliefs should be of limits when posters are debating.


    Second, I have studied the doctrine of separation of church and state in the United States as well as in some other countries. I am sure you have studied the doctrine for the United States as well.


    You know it is a very long and complicated subject and it is a bit late. But basically, separation of church and state are based on two clauses in the United States Constitution: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.


    I also think the Treaty of Tripoli made it crystal clear that we are not a Christian country. See below.



    In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:


    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



    According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."


    Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.


     


    The above may not be a complete argument for the doctrine of separation of church and state, but I think it is a pretty good start, ron.


     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to sprague1953's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to sprague1953's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    ron,

     

     

     

    "do you guys have reasoning skills, or do you just say what that email you get every morning from the DNC tells you to say?"

     

     

     

    I have always found you a reasonable guy to debate with as long as you were treated with respect. That is one reason among the self-proclaimed conservatives I respect you. For what it is worth, I even like you.

     

     

     

    In this case I did not have to read a thing except the article before I wrote my post.

     

     

     

    Can you possibly conceive that I formed my opinion without any help from anybody nor any organization? 

     

     

     

    I believe it was absolutely totally wrong to call for a government sanctioned prayer revival.

     

     

     

    I also believe it was wrong for Patrick to whip out a Christian Bible for the same reason.

     

     

     

    We either have separation of church and state or we do not.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The government does this kind of stuff all the time. Heck, I've even seen president Obama participate in some of them. My suspicion is that because this is a Christian event, it raises your hackles.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    now, to the talking points issue: maybe you don't personally get or pay attention to talking points. Others who post here do. It was snarky, and for that I apologize. However, the progressives in general are on the warpath against settled Christian doctrine, intending to replace it with progressive doctrine. Your acceptance of this agenda, limiting the religious freedom of some Americans in favor of others, this supposed seperation of church and state comes from somewhere. You didn't arrive at your belief set all on your own. It was influenced by progressive talking points, perhaps indirectly.

     

     

     

    The democrat party has decided to take the side of the anti religionists, as witnessed by their ham-fisted attempts to shoe-horn recognition of god into their convention, which was met with boos and howls.  That's not a neutral " live and let live" policy.

     

     

     

    Those are the types of talking point that make their way into your brain that cause you to think taking a slam against Christians is ok.

     

     

     

    we don't have separation of church and state. It is to be found nowhere in the constitution.  Therefore, It is not a principle that is based on sound law.  The principle in the constitution is that the federal government cannot establish a religion. This is why we have insanities like atheists putting up anti-Christian posters during Christmas.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ron,

     

    First, thanks for the apology. You are one of the few posters that will offer one. One of the reasons I respect you.

     

    Now, at the top of your post, you wrote, " My suspicion is that because this is a Christian event, it raises your hackles.".

     

    First, I made the decision awhile ago to not talk about my own spiritual beliefs online. This came to me partly after watching self-proclaimed Christians on this forum throw the poster's Christian beliefs into his face when they were debating. That is for example during an heated exchange watching two or more Christians insult and attack one another and each accuse the other of not acting in a Christian manner. That was awful an about it for me. I personally think one's beliefs should be of limits when posters are debating.

     

    Second, I have studied the doctrine of separation of church and state in the United States as well as in some other countries. I am sure you have studied the doctrine for the United States as well.

     

    You know it is a very long and complicated subject and it is a bit late. But basically, separation of church and state are based on two clauses in the United States Constitution: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

     

    I also think the Treaty of Tripoli made it crystal clear that we are not a Christian country. See below.

     


    In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

     

    As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

     


    According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. President John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

     

    Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. The treaty was submitted by President Adams and unanimously ratified by the Senate.

     

     

     

    The above may not be a complete argument for the doctrine of separation of church and state, but I think it is a pretty good start, ron.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I am reminded that the founders focused on government establishing or codifying a particular a specific religion, and not the recognition of such.  Today, we have turned that completely upside down, and focus on the practice of religion.  It is why offering of prayer from public officials, validictorians are erroneously barred from mentioning God in their speeches, and people handing out bibles are viewed as lawbreakers.

    There is no prohibition of religion in the public square, and that includes government functions.  Government's role is not to favor one over the other.

    as far as the nation not being formed as a Christian nation: this is a constant red herring from the left.  Of course we are not a theocracy.  But, the left stretches this distinction to try to portray our founders as secularists.  Simply not true.

    But we will disagree. And, of course, I am correct. (Wink)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How horrible! 

     

    Next thing we can expect is some stupid liberal governor to invoke the Bible and his religion to justify housing thousands of illegal aliens in the state.

     

    Eyes filling with tears as he quoted Scripture on Friday, Governor Deval Patrick strongly defended his plan to provide temporary shelter for up to 1,000 children who have crossed the US-Mexico border illegally and said he had identified two possible locations for them, one in Western Massachusetts and another on Cape Cod.

     

    The facilities are Westover Air Reserve Base in Chicopee and Camp Edwards in Barnstable County, which housed evacuees from Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The bases are being submitted for federal approval, and only one will be selected, said Patrick.

     


    Speaking at a news conference, the governor sought to move the issue beyond the caustic national debate over immigration and used the Bible to frame the problem as a moral one. He seized on the influx of migrant children in a way that other governors have not, showcasing the sort of oratory that helped propel him to office in 2006.

     


    “I believe that we will one day have to answer for our actions — and our inactions,” Patrick said, choking up as he was flanked by religious leaders, including Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Boston.

     

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

     

    Meanwhile what is the real moral question here?

     

    What about the people that live here legally and have to live with the consequences of Obama's incompetence and Mini-me's phony religious attitudes? There are already people that have suffered at the hands of people they have let into the country under the guise of that 2008 law. No one is allowed to see who is being classified for processing under that law and even Congress members are not allowed to see what is going on.

     

    And here at BDC we have the elegant display of hypocrisy from the moronbat side of the fence, ripping one Republican governor for some cornball declaration while the glorious governor here in MA whips out the Bible and local religious leaders.

     

    Mini me cannot be gone soon enough.

     

    Hey Governor Mini-me - why don't you have some of the "migrant" "children" put up at your 70 acre estate out west??

     

    NO, not in YOUR BACK YARD?? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's ok when there's a D next to their name..shhhh

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apples and hammers, my friend.

    the issue in your example is the search, not the infrared technology.

    a better example would be whether new age religion experiences freedom of religion.  They do.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apples and hammers, my friend.

    the issue in your example is the search, not the infrared technology.

    .....read what I wrote, and then read that sentence back to yourself.....

    a better example would be whether new age religion experiences freedom of religion.  They do.

    No, it wouldn't, because you missed the point. The point was that "show me where it says in the constitution" is a terribly foolish thing to say.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apples and hammers, my friend.

    the issue in your example is the search, not the infrared technology.

    .....read what I wrote, and then read that sentence back to yourself.....

    a better example would be whether new age religion experiences freedom of religion.  They do.

    No, it wouldn't, because you missed the point. The point was that "show me where it says in the constitution" is a terribly foolish thing to say.

    [/QUOTE]


    Equally foolish as saying, "The Constitution is a living document" .....meaning it conveniently incorporates progressive political views of the day....

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    Equally foolish as saying, "The Constitution is a living document" .....meaning it conveniently incorporates progressive political views of the day....






    Oh please. If you read enough Supreme Court decisions, you'd start to see that originalists and living constitutionalists don't differ much at all.


    The fact of the matter is that since Day 1, the Court has had to look past the exact words of the constitution, in determining what the exact words of the constitution mean.


    Originalists claim to stick to "original intent," but that's a logical impossibility when their ruling must address a subject the founders couldn't have dreamed of. Both they and living constitutionalists look to precedent and historical sources, then try to divine the answer the constitution points to. Living constitutionalists are just more honest about the fact that when they do this, they aren't actually channeling Thomas Jefferson.


    In the end, both groups are necessarily giving new meaning to the constitution's text in light of a problem the founders couldn't have had an original intent about.


    I think you may be well aware of what people who don't like living constitutionalists have to say about them.


    I don't think you're well aware of how their decisions look vs. how the originalists decisions look. (Which, again, is not all that different).

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Equally foolish as saying, "The Constitution is a living document" .....meaning it conveniently incorporates progressive political views of the day....

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    Oh please. If you read enough Supreme Court decisions, you'd start to see that originalists and living constitutionalists don't differ much at all.

     

    The fact of the matter is that since Day 1, the Court has had to look past the exact words of the constitution, in determining what the exact words of the constitution mean.

     

    Originalists claim to stick to "original intent," but that's a logical impossibility when their ruling must address a subject the founders couldn't have dreamed of. Both they and living constitutionalists look to precedent and historical sources, then try to divine the answer the constitution points to. Living constitutionalists are just more honest about the fact that when they do this, they aren't actually channeling Thomas Jefferson.

     

    In the end, both groups are necessarily giving new meaning to the constitution's text in light of a problem the founders couldn't have had an original intent about.

     

    I think you may be well aware of what people who don't like living constitutionalists have to say about them.

     

    I don't think you're well aware of how their decisions look vs. how the originalists decisions look. (Which, again, is not all that different).

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm guessing you are a fan of the legal meanderings of the wise Latina, and not an original intent guy.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apples and hammers, my friend.

    the issue in your example is the search, not the infrared technology.

    .....read what I wrote, and then read that sentence back to yourself.....

    a better example would be whether new age religion experiences freedom of religion.  They do.

    No, it wouldn't, because you missed the point. The point was that "show me where it says in the constitution" is a terribly foolish thing to say.

    [/QUOTE]


    Equally foolish as saying, "The Constitution is a living document" .....meaning it conveniently incorporates progressive political views of the day....

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, I did. I'm still right.

    stop it with this stupid " I don't find these words in the constitution" BS.

    i don't find the words " illiberal aliens shall be provided amnesty" either.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    RRF, in another thread you just quoted a portion of Article 3 that says what cases the Supreme Court has the power to hear and when.....

    ......but you told us it was actually about qualifications for being a Supreme Court justice.

     

     

    You really shouldn't try to say anything about the constitution. A founder-angel dies every time you do.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: I'll see your Friday facepalm ... and raise you one governor's proclamation for a gov't sanctioned prayer revival ...

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The precise words "infrared scanner" doesn't appear in the constitution either, yet somehow the Supreme Court was able to rule on whether using one on a house counts as a "search".

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Apples and hammers, my friend.

    the issue in your example is the search, not the infrared technology.

    .....read what I wrote, and then read that sentence back to yourself.....

    a better example would be whether new age religion experiences freedom of religion.  They do.

    No, it wouldn't, because you missed the point. The point was that "show me where it says in the constitution" is a terribly foolish thing to say.

    [/QUOTE]


    Equally foolish as saying, "The Constitution is a living document" .....meaning it conveniently incorporates progressive political views of the day....

    [/QUOTE]

    Yah, I did. I'm still right.

    stop it with this stupid " I don't find these words in the constitution" BS.

    i don't find the words " illiberal aliens shall be provided amnesty" either.

    [/QUOTE]

    ron,

    IMO there is no right or wrong answer on whether the Constitution is a living document.

    Rather there are two strong schools of thought on this.

    Put another way, it is a battle between old school and new school. The old school scholars say judges should interpret the Constitution as our founding fathers intended. The new school says that the Constitution changes and evolves.

    The old school, or original intenders like Scalia and Roberts, believe the Constitution should be left alone, no judicial activism. If you want change, pass a Constitutional Amendment.

    The new school like Ginsburg believes the Constitution is a living breathing document and laws should be interpreted in accordance with the times.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share