Separation of Church and State - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-19-2004, 02:28 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Dred Scott was thrown out by the Thirteenth and Fourteen Ammendments, long before Brown v. Board of Education. However, in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which guaranteed equal treatment of blacks in public places and on public transportation) unconstitutional, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment only applied to state governments and political freedoms for blacks, and was inapplicable to social freedoms and discrimination by businesses and individuals. In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was not unconstitutional as long as facilities for blacks and whites were equal ('seperate but equal'). So it seems those Supreme Court decisions were all pretty consistent....
__________________

__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 02:35 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Didn't Brown vs The Board throw out Dred Scott? Weren't the rulings determining black Americans to be fractions of people consistent?

Dred Scott had nothing to do with the Board of Education. Dred Scott was the case that ruled Scott was not a citizen, but property. In 1847 I believe.


Brown VS Board of Education overturned Plessy V. Fergusson.

There were MANY cases involving education...6 I believe in which Plessy V. Fergusson was upheld. I have not examined every case. I can say that the other three cases were at the graduate level. The two public school cases that challenged Plessy V. fergusson involved taxes, the classification of a Chinese child as "colored". The court had not been challenged to view Plessy V. Ferguson in light of inequality before for Public Education. There was NO case history to go on. This was a landmark case. The Court In Brown V. Board, did indeed find that there were inequalities, and also made the ruling that Plessy V. Fergusson, a case that had nothing to do with education, but railway cars, was not applicable in the case of Education.

Again, Plessy V. Fergusson was not more than a 50 year old ruling. There was very little court history to rule on.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 02:36 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie
Dred Scott was thrown out by the Thirteenth and Fourteen Ammendments, long before Brown v. Board of Education. However, in 1883, the Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (which guaranteed equal treatment of blacks in public places and on public transportation) unconstitutional, stating that the Fourteenth Amendment only applied to state governments and political freedoms for blacks, and was inapplicable to social freedoms and discrimination by businesses and individuals. In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was not unconstitutional as long as facilities for blacks and whites were equal ('seperate but equal'). So it seems those Supreme Court decisions were all pretty consistent....
You are quick girl!!!!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 02:53 PM   #49
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


That argument is moot. The wall of separation is supposed to keep Government out of religion. Not the other way around. People practicing their religion have every right to try and make laws, or amendments to the constitution. Nowhere does it say that they cannot. If the voters are against it....then let the voters decide. Unfortunately the people do not get to decide.
So then your quotes were there for what? I'm trying to figure out where they belong in this debate.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:07 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Point blank...my point is this......Religion was never meant to be kept out of governement. Governement was meant to be kept out of religion. There is a big difference. The quotes demonstrate that the intent was NOT to remove God from Governement. The intent was to make certain that the governement was not imposing a religious doctrine on the people. The Bible is not a doctrine, it is a book. Prayer is not a doctrine either.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:11 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


You are quick girl!!!!


I did an essay a few months ago on how and why Jim Crow laws were maintained in the South throughout the 50's and 60's (and covered the origins of Jim Crow in the intro), so I still remember a lot from it.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:16 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
It was not designed to have courts throw out 150 years of judicial rulings....consistent judicial rulings. The Court, based on what I know, is supposed to be ruling based on past rulings and decisions. I am not a lawyer....NB?
The "living Constitution" arguments have been used over the last fifty years to effectively legistlate through court ruling. The idea is to bring an extreme case, with a particularly moving set of facts, then in front of a friendly judge begin amending the Constitution in the courtroom. Today, both liberal and conservative groups use these methods, though I'd say the ACLU is the grandaddy in this arena.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:29 PM   #53
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Point blank...my point is this......Religion was never meant to be kept out of governement. Governement was meant to be kept out of religion.
So if religion was never meant to be kept out of government, which religion? All the quotes you showed mentioned the Bible which is specific to a religion. So once again it's OK if it's your religion, but what about everyone else?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:37 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


So if religion was never meant to be kept out of government, which religion? All the quotes you showed mentioned the Bible which is specific to a religion. So once again it's OK if it's your religion, but what about everyone else?
The Bible is not specific to ONE religion.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:52 PM   #55
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 09:40 PM
But it's not part of mine.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 03:56 PM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The Bible is not specific to ONE religion.
The Bible as I know it with the Old and New testament is specific to Christianity.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:00 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
And no one is forcing it on you. There is NO national Denomination.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:01 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Do you know who Fisher Ames was?

In an effort to delete religious expression from our public life, secularists have long used the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' to demand a strict separation of church and state. People would be surprised to learn that the man who wrote the First Amendment had an entirely different view of the Establishment Clause from modern day secularists.
Fisher Ames, 1758-1808, was a Massachusetts Congressman. In the United States' First Congressional Session, Ames suggested the words, which were adopted by the House and slightly modified, on August 20, 1789:

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the right of conscience.

Contrary to the view that no religious expression should exist in public schools, the view of modern day secularists, Ames believed the Bible should play a key role in the education of our school children:

Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble…. The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind…. In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as faith.

In September 1789, Ames stated in Palladium magazine:

We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools…. We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children containing fables and moral lessons…. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal test in our schools…. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other manmade book.

It is interesting to note that the words ''separation of church and state'' appear nowhere in the Constitution, as secularists commonly imply. The words originally appeared as ''wall of separation between church and state'' in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.


Source: America's God and Country by William J. Federer
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:12 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:40 PM
So Dread do you believe we should use the Bible in our schools and government? So people of other religions will have to read, learn or have laws based on a religion that's not theirs and may actually conflict with theirs?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:27 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
And no one is forcing it on you. There is NO national Denomination.
So as long as the government doesn't adopt one of the 33000 denominations which profess to be "Christian" it's not infringing on anyone's rights?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com