National Day Of Prayer Showcases Intolerant Religious Right Agenda (1 Viewer)

[georgedwilkinson]

Could it be someone with a Stones lyric in their siggy?

 

[Rabbie]

Could it be someone with a Stones lyric in their siggy?

Could be but the only one I know is not my candidate. Whoever it is they deseve an award as WUM of the week

 

[Mick Jagger]

So was Mother Teresa.

No, she wasn't.

 

[Rabbie]

No, she wasn't.

As a good Catholic she should have been against abortion. I don't remember seeing her on any pro-life demonstrations

 

[Mick Jagger]

As a good Catholic she should have been against abortion. I don't remember seeing her on any pro-life demonstrations

She wasn't a good Catholic, either.

 

[Rabbie]

She wasn't a good Catholic, either.

So why has she been beatified by Pope John-Paul

Following her death she was beatified by Pope John Paul II and given the title Blessed Teresa of Calcutta

they don't do that for bad catholics

 

[georgedwilkinson]

OK, Mr. Jagger (if that's your real name). For the sake of argument, we'll say that Mother Teresa was not a good Catholic and she was not against abortion. If that is true, forgive me for bringing it up in my earlier post (also, I'm sure a lot of Catholics will want to call you on that).

Now, let's assume that I am against abortion, like Stalin and/or John McCain (according to you). Was your statement implying that John McCain takes on aspects of Stalin (i.e. he is in some way evil or has some other bad characteristic we would assume you are referring to, since you brought it up) because he shares (according to you) one preference. Further, assuming you are trying to associate John McCain to Stalin so we (the readers) would think of John McCain as evil (or whatever that bad characteristic is, like Stalin--according to your "logic"), are you thus saying that I am evil (or whatever that bad characteristic you're trying to pin on McCain) because I (in this scenario) share the same belief?

I just want to know where we stand.

 

[Sum Guy]

I share the same birthday as Stalin, which means I have the same zodiac sign. I also have a moustache and grey hair and I'm known better by my nickname than my given name.
Does this mean I'm going to start purging people and shooting them?
Maybe I'll start small and just invade Finland.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

That sounds like a wise choice.

 

[Mick Jagger]

What’s right, or wrong, about the methodology used to arrive at the following interpretation of the Constitution?

The kind of separation that was intended [by the U. S. Constitution] is suggested by Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral. In 1791, Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States. George Washington, previously President of the Constitutional Convention and then President of the United States, then commissioned L'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. That plan included a church "intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect of denomination, but equally open to all." The Founders and Framers favored governmental neutrality among denominations, but they never expected government to be barred from supporting religion generally to please a tiny Godless minority.

--Michael J. Gaynor​

 

[oumahexi]

She wasn't a good Catholic, either.

Who cares what religion the woman was, she was a lovely person who cared for others. You're probably jealous that you're not worthy to eat the dust she walked on

 

[georgedwilkinson]

What’s right, or wrong, about the methodology used to arrive at the following interpretation of the Constitution?

Is this a test?

I say, D, all the above. Is that right?

 

[Mick Jagger]

Do you believe the lawmakers believe, assumed, understood or anticipated that the language they used in the U. S. Constitution to express their collective will was to be construed according to Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral? If so, why?

The lawmakers probably believed, assumed, understood or anticipated that the language they used in the U. S. Constitution to express their collective will would be construed according to the common law rules of Construction.

******
​

Evidence that the founders generally believed that legal instruments should be interpreted according to the common law rules of construction.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1782
Page 334

...The Committee [Mr James Madison, Mr Ezekiel Cornell, Mr Elias Boudinot] to whom the Report of the Commissioners for settling a Cartel &c. and also the Motions of Messrs. [James] Madison and [Arthur] Middleton were referred, Report,
That it appears to your Committee that the British Commissioners did refuse to accede to any measures for liquidating the accounts of past expenditures for the feeding of prisoners of war, or to make any provision for their future support.
That although by the articles of capitulation of York Town, the Capitulants were to be supplied with the same rations as were issued to our own soldiers, yet on every rational and known rule of construction, it must have been understood that the same was to have been done at the expence of the enemy, therefore,
Resolved, That His Excellency the Commander in Chief be instructed to acquaint the British General, that unless proper measures are taken for the payment of the Rations to be issued to the British Prisoners of War in possession of the United States, under the capitulation of York Town, as also for payment of the rations already issued to them, and that on or before the first day of August next, that orders will be given for reducing the ration to be issued in future to said Prisoners in such manner as Congress shall direct.


The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5]
Friday, August 17.

...The clause, "to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies," &c. &c., being considered, --
Mr. MADISON moved to strike out "and punishment," &c., after the words "to declare the law."
Mr. MASON doubts the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction of in criminal cases. He doubted also the propriety of taking the power, in all these cases, wholly from the states.


Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1780


...No objection can be pretended against what is here said, except that the king of Great Britain was, at the time of the rupture with his Catholick Majesty, possessed of certain parts of the territory in question, and consequently that his Catholick Majesty had and still has a right to regard them as lawful objects of conquest. In answer to this objection, it is to be considered, 1. That these possessions are few in number and confined to small spots. 2. That a right founded on conquest being only coextensive with the objects of conquest, cannot comprehend the circumjacent territory. 3. That if a right to the said territory depended on the conquests of the British posts within it, the United States have already a more extensive claim to it than Spain can acquire, having by the success of their arms obtained possession of all the important posts and settlements on the Illinois and Wabash, rescued the inhabitants from British domination, and established civil government in its proper form over them. They have, moreover, established a post on a strong and commanding situation near the mouth of the Ohio: whereas Spain has a claim by conquest to no post above the northern bounds of West Florida, except that of the Natchez, nor are there any other British posts below the mouth of the Ohio for their arms to be employed against. 4. That whatever extent ought to be ascribed to the right of conquest, it must be admitted to have limitations which in the present case exclude the pretensions of his Catholick Majesty. If the occupation by the king of Great Britain of posts within the limits of the United States, as defined by charters derived from the said king when constitutionally authorized to grant them, makes them lawful objects of conquest to any other power than the United States, it follows that every other part of the United States that now is, or may hereafter fall into the hands of the enemy, is equally an object of conquest. Not only New York, Long Island, and the other islands in its vicinity, but almost the entire states of South Carolina and Georgia might, by the interposition of a foreign power at war with their enemy, be forever severed from the American confederacy, and subjected to a foreign yoke. But is such a doctrine consonant to the rights of nations, or the sentiments of humanity? Does it breathe that spirit of concord and amity which is the aim of the proposed alliance with Spain? Would it be admitted by Spain herself, if it affected her own dominions? Were, for example, a British armament by a sudden enterprise to get possession of a seaport, a trading town, or maritime province in Spain, and another power at war with Britain, should, before it could be re-conquered by Spain, wrest it from the hands of Britain, would Spain herself consider it as an extinguishment of her just pretensions? Or would any impartial nation consider it in that light? [As to the proclamation of the king of Great Britain of 1763, forbidding his governours in North America to grant lands westward of the sources of the rivers falling into the Atlantick ocean, it can by no rule of construction militate against the present claims of the United States. That proclamation, as is clear both from the title and tenor of it, was intended merely to prevent disputes with the Indians, and an irregular appropriation of vacant land to individuals; and by no means either to renounce any parts of the cessions made in the treaty of Paris, or to affect the boundaries established by ancient charters. On the contrary, it is expressly declared that the lands and territory prohibited to be granted, were within the sovereignty and dominion of that crown, notwithstanding the reservation of them to the use of the Indians.


​

 

[Rich]

Do you believe the lawmakers believe, assumed, understood or anticipate that the language they used in the U. S. Constitution to express their collective will was to be construed according to Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral? If so, why?

Who cares?

 

[ColinEssex]

What's wrong with abortion? or for that matter euthanasia?

If the mother wishes to have an abortion then why not? In the UK the limit is 24 weeks.

Also, if a person is too sick to be healed - why not have them put down like we do animals, it'll save alot of wasted money caring for people.

I'm sure alot of terminally sick people would like to be put down. We choose when to do it to a dog or cat - why not a sick person?

Col

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Do you believe the lawmakers believe, assumed, understood or anticipate that the language they used in the U. S. Constitution to express their collective will was to be construed according to Pierre L'Enfant's plan for a national cathedral? If so, why?

Hmmmm...that's a tough one. Can I get a shout out?

 

[Rabbie]

What's wrong with abortion? or for that matter euthanasia?

If the mother wishes to have an abortion then why not? In the UK the limit is 24 weeks.

Also, if a person is too sick to be healed - why not have them put down like we do animals, it'll save alot of wasted money caring for people.

I'm sure alot of terminally sick people would like to be put down. We choose when to do it to a dog or cat - why not a sick person?

Col

My main reservation about euthanasia is that an old person may be put under considerable pressure to be euthanased by people who stand to inherit. I think anyone advocating euthanasia has to say what safeguards they would put in place to prevent the abuse of this.

 

[Fifty2One]

The lawmakers probably believed, assumed, understood or anticipated that the language they used in the U. S. Constitution to express their collective will would be construed according to the common law rules of Construction.

Lots of big fancy words from people who invaded a land and claimed it their own while they brutalized and enslaved minorities.
I think I will have to stop reading this thread because the intent seems to be from someone who is pretty closed minded and obviously brain washed to ignore many facts.

 

[Mick Jagger]

“The [religious] proclamation of the two former presidents [George Washington and John Adams] recommending fasting and prayer, were of this nature [Proclamations]; they were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the third article of amendments. [Now known as the First Amendment]”

--Saint George Tucker (1803) ​

Tucker understood, correctly I believe, that the U. S. Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever religion. Also, he does not say the "letter" of the Fist Amendment prohibits executive religious recommendations. He says the "spirit" of the First Amendment prohibits religious proclamations.

It must always be kept in mind, when interpreting the First Amendment, that it didn't separate religion from civil authority. The government never had any in the first place.

Also, when interpreting the Second Amendment, one must alway recall that the government was never granted any power whatsoever over 'arms." In retrospect, that was rather foolish. But, that's what they did.

They probably expected us to amend the Constitution to allow the government to control modern instruments of combat (Machine guns, explosives, aircraft, etc.) which common sense says should not be available to the general public.

 

[Mick Jagger]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] May 27, 2008 [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif] Wisconsin Sheriff Has No Right To Impose Religion On Employees, Americans United Tells Appeals Court[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif] Church-State Watchdog Says Required Attendance At ‘Fellowship Of Christian Centurions’ Events Violated Constitution [/FONT][/FONT]
A Wisconsin sheriff has no right to compel his employees to attend presentations by an evangelical Christian group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed today with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans United asserts that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke violated the separation of church and state when he required deputies to attend presentations by the Fellowship of Christian Centurions (FCC). (The FCC is an organization formed by members of an evangelical church in Brookfield, Wisc.)
FCC representatives spoke at 16 mandatory roll call events where they proselytized attendees and passed out materials reflecting their religious views. A Roman Catholic deputy and a Muslim deputy objected to the speeches, but Clarke continued to hold them.
“Government officials can’t impose their religious beliefs on employees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Sheriff Clarke’s job is to uphold the law and the Constitution, not undermine it.”
Americans United’s legal brief points out that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have repeatedly said that government officials may not coerce people to take part in religious activities.
“This anti-coercion principle forbids government officials not only from requiring their subordinates to participate in religious activities such as prayer or Bible-reading, but also from requiring them to attend events at which prayers are said or proselytizing speeches are made,” asserts the AU brief.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled in September of 2007 that Clarke’s actions amounted to a coercive promotion of religion. Clarke later filed an appeal before the 7th Circuit.
AU’s legal brief in the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Association v. Clarke case was written by Louis Cohen, Heather Gomes and Ryan Foreman of the Washington, D.C., office of the international law firm WilmerHale, in consultation with AU Legal Director Ayesha Khan and AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser.

* * * *​

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom. ​