Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
505
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

505 Views
Message 1 of 67

@pc6063 wrote:

Hey AP--Wow! Very informative-you really went back-thank you!


Those who can't/won't/don't learn the lessons of history are condemned to become and remain Dunning-Kruger trumpettes.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
505
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
512
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

512 Views
Message 2 of 67

Hey AP--Wow! Very informative-you really went back-thank you!

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
512
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
523
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

523 Views
Message 3 of 67

@rker321 wrote:

@pc6063 wrote:

Hey Alferd Packer--I do wish that Trump and those who think this latest wack job EO is something debatable, would learn what's in the Constitution.

With all the diversions about Obama's church, and all the denials of whatever isn't to one's liking, the bottom line is that the Constitution of the United States calls for the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL PIECE OF GARBAGE THAT SOME FEDERAL JUDGE, WHO, I'M SURE HAS BETTER THINGS TO DO, WILL HAVE TO BLOCK.

Sure be nice if Trump would stop wasting everybody's time and money.  Oh wait, he really doesn't care about anybody else's money, does he?

 


I am afraid that I will have to disagree with you on this one, as much as I wish that it was true.

In the First Ammendment there is nothing that says a word about  Churcn and State. I believe that it was Jefferson that mentioned something about  Church and State.

But there are quite a bit of precedents in the Supreme Court in which they have allowed cases in which the Separation of church and State was an issue. and that is what I believe that it will provide a strong poing in all of this.


The first government action in this country involving an application of the concept of separation of church and state dates from the early 1640s when Rhode Island Colony separated the authority/actions of church and state to ensure they did not have an effect upon each other.

Incidentally - Roger Williams - the man from whom the concept of separation of church originates in this country - in addition to being a Christian Minister - was also the founder of the nation's first Baptist Congregation as well as being founder of Rhode Island Colony.

 

The concept - as well as government practice of separation of church and state - originated over a century and a half before President Thomas Jefferson on January 1, 1802 penned the words that repeated/reiterated that time honored concept.

 

 

The Supreme Court researched the issue, and as a result of that reaearch came to the conclusion - based upon the writings of the Founding Fathers - Framers of the Constitution - the Bill of Rights as well as multiple other people who had marked influence - that separation of church and state had always been intended and had been implicitly (both meanings) understood to be an integral part of the First Amemdment.

 

True - strict constructionists  and literalists disagree - but they've always been quite unfortunately dead wrong.  

Multiple Supreme Court decisions affirm that.

 

In addition, in 1803 - in Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court decision included two things that are to this day followed without exception...

 

The first is - "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department (Supreme Court) to say what the law is"

(In short, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the law is)

 

The second is that "a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the constitution."

That also includes Executive Orders, and acts of state and local governments.

Notice that it says "a court" - not "the highest court " - see the implication?

Isn't it a terrible shame Jeffy boy Sessions never learned that?

 

Those are all history that can be looked up and verified to be fact.

 

Perhaps an "alternate interpretation" of history can be posted here - certified by Sean Spicer, Kellyanne Conway, Ann Coulter, Ben Carson, and Milo - for our ROTFLOAO amusement.

 

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
523
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
528
Views

duplicate deleted by author

528 Views
Message 4 of 67

duplicate deleted by author

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
528
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
532
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

532 Views
Message 5 of 67

@rker321 wrote:

Like I have been saying. this is going to the Supreme Court to be debated all over again. Maybe this time the Supreme Court will rule with more clarity.


I agree. I think the result should be zero government benefits for churches and zero restrictions on what they can do. 

 

The problem with the Trump executive order is that it allows individuals to discriminate and use religion as their excuse. This is, of course, unacceptable. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
532
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
536
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

536 Views
Message 6 of 67

Rker--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or perhaps between the free exercise thereof."  There ya go,  those are the exact words of the amendment. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
536
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
543
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

543 Views
Message 7 of 67

@Richva wrote:


Just that there should be no establishment of a state religion. The SCOTUS has always interpreted that to mean that any church and the state should operate independently.  I know the only reason churches get tax deductable status is that they do "good works" and do not try to influence politics. Looks like they will be examining this again. Personally, I think we should just eliminate that tax exempton and let them do what ever they want.  


Like I have been saying. this is going to the Supreme Court to be debated all over again. Maybe this time the Supreme Court will rule with more clarity.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
543
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
549
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

549 Views
Message 8 of 67

@rker321 wrote:

@pc6063 wrote:

Rker-it is the 1st amendment to the constitution.


Ok, now I am really confused.  My understanding is. that there is nothing in the First Ammendment that says a word about Separation of church and State, and it all started by Jefferson and the quote that you posted.
am I wrong?


Just that there should be no establishment of a state religion. The SCOTUS has always interpreted that to mean that any church and the state should operate independently.  I know the only reason churches get tax deductable status is that they do "good works" and do not try to influence politics. Looks like they will be examining this again. Personally, I think we should just eliminate that tax exempton and let them do what ever they want.  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
549
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
550
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

550 Views
Message 9 of 67

@rker321 wrote:



Of course there is nothing that says a word about separation between church and state, it is just an assumption based on the First Amendment.

Nope .... it was the words of Jefferson and reinforced by the United States Supreme Court in 1878!


--

Could you point out the references in to that in your link?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
550
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
553
Views

Re: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order

553 Views
Message 10 of 67

@myexper wrote:


The words became implicit by the First Amendment when the Supreme Court upheld the words of Jefferson.

 

"Separation of Church and State" is thus a Constitutional mandate!

 

Look I really hope that you are correct, because if so. how come Trump was able to do an EO that most definitely  does not comply with the separation of Church and State. 
So far, I have not seen anyone yet, saying that Separation of State  and Church is constitutional. and that Trump doesn't have the right to do that.
Just started reseaching and this is what I found.
"However, the Court has not always interpreted the constitutional principle as absolute, and the proper extent of separation between government and religion in the U.S. remains an ongoing subject of impassioned debate.[3"


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
553
Views