FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following.
FDR's (Protestant?) state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices probably twisted the Founding States' intention for the Establishment Clause to politically “attack” Roman Catholics imo.
From related threads …
First, since the Founding States had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights that they expressly protected in the Bill of Rights, the founders obligating only the feds to respect such protections, the states therefore having no constitutional prohibition on making laws to "cultivate" (my word) religious expression, the real question is where did the politically correct idea of “impermissible” overlap of church and state come from?
It came from FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist Supreme Court justices imo.
More specifically, regardless what FDR’s activist justices wanted everybody to think about the “wall of separation” statement made by their “Hollywood” version of Thomas Jefferson, the real Jefferson had clarified the following about church and state separation.
”3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that -the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people-: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed [emphasis added]; . . . “ - Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
FDR's justices had argued in Cantwell v. Connecticut (Cantwell) that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) effectively took unique state government power to cultivate religious expression away from the states.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws [emphasis added]. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
Further undermining the competence of the states, using inappropriate terms like "concept" and "implied" here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR's justices got finished with it in Wickard v. Filburn decided a few years later.
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
But the Court's decision in Cantwell was wrong imo, for the following reason.
Justices who were probably outcome-driven seemingly ignored that the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of that amendment, had clarified that 14A took away no state powers, 14A reasonably limiting state power to cultivate religious expression indicated by Jefferson.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights [emphasis added] that belong to the States." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)
"No right [emphasis added] reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired . . ." —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. [emphasis added] I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence." - John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)
Regarding Bingham's clarification of the limits of 14A, note that Jefferson had put it this way about interpreting the law.
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808.
And as Justice Reed had indicated about 10A and 14A in Jones v. City of Opelika, it is the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A-protected personal rights.
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.
Again, regardless what post-FDR era constitutional "experts" are institutionally indoctrinated to believe about the Establishment Clause, it remains that Bingham had officially indicated that the states still have their unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to cultivate religious expression, powers acknowledged by "atheist" Jefferson, regardless of the Court's misguided, politically correct interpretation that clause in Cantwell.
In other words, the states still have the power to do things like allow public schools to teach Holy Bible and erect Christian memorial crosses on public land for example, power that the colonies had before the Constitution was ratified, regardless that the states no longer understand that. But the states now have to respect 14A protections by making Bible classes an elective for example.
Finally, the Supreme Court's politically correct interpretation of 14A in the Cantwell case seems to be a consequence of the ongoing "civil war" between Catholics and Protestants in USA. (Jesus' teaching of Matthew 12:25 comes to mind.)
Regarding Protestants versus Catholics in the U.S., consider the 19th century anti-Catholic political cartoons of Thomas Nast.
Thomas Nast
But more importantly, consider the 19th century federal Protestant lawmaker Rep. James G. Blaine had tried, but failed, to have his proposed amendment ratified to the Constitution, an amendment which would have prohibited taxpayer support of "sectarian" (aka Roman Catholic) public schools in the states.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations." —Failed Blaine Amendment
H O W E V E R …
It can be argued that FDR's activist justices picked up the baton dropped by Blaine and effectively legislated his failed amendment to the Constitution from the bench by arguing their politically correct interpretation of Establishment Clause.
Corrections, insights welcome.
And Global Warming gets more and more believable ...
Wow, is Darwin Central even still a thing? The DC’ers trolling FR got run out of here in the Crevo Wars, or so I thought.
All this big talk of the universe, time, space, life, evolution, intelligent design makes me want to....
Play all three Mass Effects again as toxically masculine male Shep and romance Liara.
:-)
In the beginning God created the electromagnetic spectrum producing time space mass and they had none locality.
I believe that all the useful, productive genetic information out there is all there ever has been and ever will be - scattered throughout creation waiting to combine, as necessary, to allow the creature to adapt (or evolve as you will) to deal with a dynamic, constantly changing, world. Yes, it is done via natural selection, but that’s done with genetic info God put there from the beginning, not by any random “mutation”. Scripture tells us God made his various classes of life “in their kinds”, clearly indicating they had the ability to adapt, change and multiply in response to their environment. Useful information has a creator and all the necessary information has been there from the beginning, or at least since the 6th day.
(I don't know if this is my own thing or something I read somewhere)
For evolution to even get a start, one has to believe that atoms form molecules and molecules and atoms form into even more complex things, and the whole ball of wax becomes all living things as we now know it/them.
But, all of that started with the assumption that atoms just came into existence, and that their composition was accidental. And, even more accidental was the sudden appearance of the subatomic particles which went into the creation of atoms.
The biggest puzzle of IT ALL, is the rules. For anything to exist, there are rules, whether mathematical rules or creationist rules or both.
So, WHO created the rules that govern everything in existence? If not a WHO, then what? Rules and ‘things’ do not just materialize or come into existence.
It all came from something, somewhere, some process, some big boom, whatever. I give that mechanism, whatever it’s nature, a 3-letter name beginning with G. No amount of semantics or philosophy or explanation about that mechanism can change that. I’m glad we come to understand more and more about that mechanism over time... but that doesn’t change the name I give it.
Spend an hour or two watching videos about intelligent design on YouTube, and you too will come away with the conclusion that a Master Designer created the bedrock nuts and bolts of all living organisms.
At the molecular level, the systems in our bodies resemble (and operate like) actual factories, with machines of all sorts performing the myriad tasks that keep us alive.
The claim that these complex systems arose through sheer accident over millions of years seems ludicrous after closely studying them.
Then show us the “missing link”....
So are you or any of the posters here an atheist or an agnostic, and if you, do you support America being pro-God, and what is the basis for your moral views?
Evolution is religion that pretends to be science. Evolutionists and Global Warmists have weaponized the word “science”. The bible warns about this very thing.