Posted on 08/16/2004 3:15:24 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
You agree with me then. I was called a leftist in this conversation for saying so earlier.
Some here seem kind of want to force the issue further. A few seem to want a state inforced religion. I don't want that. I don't want a government sanctioned secularly empowered church. Remember what happened in the Middle Ages: indulgences, spiritual apostacy, the pope holding cities under interdict, burnings at the stake for heresy.
The multiplicity of sects and viewpoints is good. A state sanctioned religious faith is apostate.
The Constitution has one purpose; to quard absolute (self-evident) unchangeable truths.
Since relativists don't believe in absolute truth, they are the only ones that will be attempting to undermine our Constitution, and wanting to refer to it as a "living (changeable) document".
Leftists and postmodernists wish to deconstruct the entire basis for western society including those "myths" about the Founding Fathers being great patriots and champions of freedom.
It's important to have forceful answers to them and other totalitarians that would use religion (marxism included) to batter away at our Constitution.
Thanks.
I thought this conversation terminated days ago, and cooler heads prevailed.
There are no 'cooler heads' among those who advocate State supported religion.
They ~demand~ that you belong.
Yeah. I see what you mean.
A nation which allows abortion is not a Christian nation. America is a country which has Christians in it.
Sorry, I missed your post and wanted to reply. Most Christians believe that government should insure man the freedom to choose. Within social constraints of course. No murder, theft, or behaviour outside the norm.
I have a problem with the last part.
No.
We have made acceptable the murder of babies, even to the point of making it law.
That will not go unjudged.
Christianity is a RELIGION, encompassing all who believe in Christ's status as the Son Of God, and in his divinity.
Its establishment as the nation's Official Religion in law is therefore unconstitutional.
You do not change Christianity's status as a religion by making its base broader.
So does theocracy, Phil. I'm sure youve noticed, religious states tend to be quite opressive, to say nothing of dangerous to others.
Witness your own bemoaning of the fact that you can't force other people's children to see elements of your own faith in school. Small step, I know, but it constitutes coercion anyway.
And as for "brainwashing", all I'm doing is reading the Constitution as written. If you'll recall, opressive theocracies predated the communists and Marxists (AND the ACLU) by thousands of years.
Well said, ya bastard!
Length of term on the court? So I guess William O. Douglas who served two years longer (36 - the record) is more correct about everything?
Or tenure only counts when you agree with the interpretation..
>>>Length of term on the court? So I guess William O. Douglas who served two years longer (36 - the record) is more correct about everything?<<<
That is a poorly thought-out statement. If Douglas had served in the earlier days of the nation (like Story) when the court was less corrupted with the precedence of previous courts, then your statement would have some merit.
You're stating things as fact that you can't possibly know. There was nothing poorly thought out in my statement. Douglas did have the longest tenure on the court and you sighted the length of Story's term as a reason to put stock in his decisions.
I simply asked you a question. After reading your previous posts on this thread I shouldn't have expected a sensible reply.
>>>Less corrupted?<<<
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Supreme Court has become increasingly corrupt over the years, and in particular since the FDR administration.
>>>Douglas did have the longest tenure on the court and you sighted the length of Story's term as a reason to put stock in his decisions.<<<
In typical liberal fashion, you completely ignored other parts of my statement that did not fit your agenda. My original statement was:
"Do you believe the communist-inspired A.C.L.U. psychopaths, whose 'interpretations' have been used only in recent years for precedent'; or do you believe one of the earliest supreme court justices, who served distinguishedly for 34 years on the bench, and whose writings have been used through most of our nation's history as precedent for constitutional interpretation?"
Note that I also put Story into the category of "one of the earliest supreme court justices", and "whose writings have been used through most of our nation's history as precedent for constitutional interpretation". Why did you ignore those two statements? Because they didn't fit your agenda.
For the record, why did you wait nearly a year to reply? Were you hoping I would no longer be paying attention?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.