Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Once again...

In response to Wording Choice posted by Migisi:

"The [national] government of the United States" IS the representational body of the states. So, when the leader of that representational body openly declares in an international treaty that the national government is "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion", it speaks for the states.

This is only true if the treaty is DESIGNED to apply that way. Show me where the Treaty of Tripoli had this effect on the states! The states CONTINUED to have established churches AFTER the Treaty of Tripoli. THat is a fact, Migisi!

State laws can be more restrictive in areas that are not addressed in the Constitution. However, a state can not enact laws which violate, usurp, or overturn the the "carefully defined parameters" of the US Constitution.

Agreed - but this was designed and intended to work BOTH ways! The federal government was not permitted to step into areas reserved for the states (see Amendments 9 and 10).

The church/state separation clause was/is such a parameter.

I chuckle, because there IS no such wording in the Constitution itself or in any of its amendments. The "Wall of separation" phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson - who wasn't even present at the Constitutional Convention and who had no direct part in authoring the First Amendment to the document AFTER the Constitutional Convention. But, nevertheless, his letter has been used by the Supreme Court to define the meaning of the First Amendment.

Nevertheless, Jefferson himself didn't mean what the phrase has come to mean. He was assuring the Danbury Baptists that the US government (the national government) could not interfere with their right to practice their religion freely because there was a "wall of separation" erected by the Constitution to protect them from such interference.

Since then, liberal Courts have expanded the meaning of the phrase (and of the Amendment) to keep religion out of the public square. This was NEVER the intention of the Founding Fathers, including the authors of the Treaty of Tripoli.

I think it could've and should've been more 'carefully defined' by the Constitution's authors.

It was clear enough for them for what they were trying to accomplish, but modern liberal judges (and modern liberals as well for the most part) don't really care what the Founding Fathers were trying to accomplish.

But its intent has been clearly established....

??????? The First Amendment? The Treaty of Tripoli? The Founding Fathers' intent? What are you referencing here?

...and this is why states can not declare or establish any religious denomination anymore.

No. You're just plain wrong here. The 14th Amendment is what expanded the scope of the Bill of Rights (including Amendment 1) to the states - making it unconstitutional for them to declare state religious establishments. The Treaty of Tripoli - HISTORICALLY speaking - had NOTHING to do with it.

» Migisi - Once again...

In response to Once again... posted by BrianTubbs:
.
This is only true if the treaty is DESIGNED to apply that way. Show me where the Treaty of Tripoli had this effect on the states! The states CONTINUED to have established churches AFTER the Treaty of Tripoli. THat is a fact, Migisi!
.
The 1797 treaty was a peace treaty ratified unanonmously by all 23 Senators (representing the states) - a treaty between the united STATES of America (get it... the United ~States~) and Barbary coast Muslims. The entire language of the treaty was reprinted in two newspapers in Philadelphia and one in New York City. No public outcry was recorded opposing the "not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" statement. The effect it had on the states was that ALL states supported the treaty's language. So what if there were still state theocracies at the time? The Supreme Court would deal with that internal problem later. Change had already begun eleven years before the Treaty of Tripoli - with Jefferson's "Statute for Religious Freedom" law passed in Virginia in 1786.
.
This was NEVER the intention of the Founding Fathers, including the authors of the Treaty of Tripoli.
.
Clearly, there was enough support for that intention - even among Christian preachers. Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist minister in 1773 New England: "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued." As early as the 1630s, your own Roger Williams, founder of the first or second Baptist church in America, was an avid proponent of church/state separation. I could drag out more, but suffice it to say, the same debates existed then as do now.
.
The Treaty of Tripoli - HISTORICALLY speaking - had NOTHING to do with it.
.
Isn't that what I said? I wrote: "First, the subject introduced (Treaty of Tripoli) has nothing to do with state constitutions." Meaning state constitutional theocracies etc.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Terms not the same

In response to Once again... posted by Migisi:

Let me be clear. I am opposed to state-established religious denominations. Always have been. Always will be. My point has never been to defend the early American states in doing this, but rather to show that they DID do this - and thus, the Treaty of Tripoli can't be read as a rejection of that.

In other words....I agree that the sentiments of the Treaty of Tripoli SHOULD have prevailed over the states. The government should not be in the business of advancing specific religious doctrine and/or denominations. That's not the purview of the state - not the nation-state and not an American state.

BUT....the states at the time of the American founding (and I would argue the architects of the Treaty of Tripoli as well) did NOT see the Treaty's language as a refutation of the status quo. They merely saw it as a statement of the status quo - i.e., the federal government isn't founded on the Christian religion. They did not see this as having any bearing on the states - not at the time of the Treaty's ratification.

Migisi, you keep hammering away at the "UNITED" states and all that. You're barking up the wrong tree. I'm with you on that, but the Founding Fathers in 1797 did NOT see the "UNITED STATES" in the same way that you, Pink, and I do today.

» Brian Tubbs - Terms - Part Two

Most significantly, the terms "church" and "state" didn't mean to the Founders what the Supreme Court has (over the last 50 years) defined them as. The Founding Fathers didn't want a government-run, government-established denomination dominating the United States as had been the case in England - with the Church of England.

They did NOT, however, mean to suggest that the government had to avoid mentioning God or endorsing general principles of Judaism and Christianity. Separating the INSTITUTIONS of "church" and "state" did not mean - to them - that we should remove God from politics and the public square.

» pink101 - Loosely Knit

In response to Loosely Knit posted by BrianTubbs:

.
When the Constitution was presented for ratification, individual states based their ratification on the Bill of Rights.
.
In plain words that means that it was the Bill of Rights for which the ratifications were made.
.
The Bill of Rights retains power to the people against the government which tells any one who wants to know that what was in the Constitution as far as government is concerned was not trusted by the individual states and the people.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Corrections

In response to Loosely Knit posted by pink101:

When the Constitution was presented for ratification, individual states based their ratification on the Bill of Rights.

That's not entirely correct. Most of the states that initially ratified the Constitution did so without demanding a national bill of rights, since the states already had bills of rights in their respective constitutions.

You do know that the national Bill of Rights was ADDED to the Constitution AFTER it was ratified and in effect, don't you?

It IS true that Virginia, North Carolina, and New York ratified based on assurances that there would be a national Bill of Rights forthcoming. But they ratified on faith.
.
In plain words that means that it was the Bill of Rights for which the ratifications were made.

Only with a few states - and only based on a promise. James Madison crafted 12 amendments to the Constitution once the new US federal government took office. He sent them to the First Congress. Eleven were passed by Congress and sent to the states. Ten of those eleven were ratified by the states. Those ten amendments comprise what we know as the Bill of Rights.
.
The Bill of Rights retains power to the people against the government which tells any one who wants to know that what was in the Constitution as far as government is concerned was not trusted by the individual states and the people.

The Bill of Rights was capped off with Amendments 9 and 10 (which have been largely forgotten today). Those Amendments guaranteed rights to the PEOPLE and to the STATES based on what was left unsaid in the full Constitution (amendments included). In other words, the people and the states retained those rights specifically called out in the Constitution AS WELL AS those rights NOT mentioned. This has been largely forgotten in our modern era of judicial activism.

» pink101 - Corrections

In response to Corrections posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Sometimes corrections can be seen as contentious.
.
(contentious)

# adjective: involving or likely to cause controversy (Example: "A central and contentious element of the book- Tim W.Ferfuson")
# adjective: inclined or showing an inclination to dispute or disagree, even to engage in law suits (Example: "A style described as abrasive and contentious")
# adjective: having or showing a ready disposition to fight (Example: "A contentious nature")
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Conterntious

In response to Corrections posted by pink101:
.
The struggle to ratify the Bill of Rights was a contentious time in Congress.
.
The fight was between the Federalists and the anti-federalists. And it was over the idea of States' Rights and an unrest among the people.
.
Generally the people didn't trust any government.
.
It's true that some states had bills of rights; but, not all of them. And, those that did were divided on what was and was not protected. In Pennsylvania there was a constitutional provision that anyone being sworn into office must recognize the New Testament so Pennsylvania basically had Christianity as a state religion by law. Bills of rights were often not effectively respected by individual states.
.
Largely, the opposition against them claimed the Bill of Rights would only be a "paper barrier" against a governmental power to over ride rights.
.
I started a thread, Okay, precisely to deal with the ratification of the Bill of Rights--and thus the Constitution as it was finally accepted--that took place on December 15, 1791.
.
The Bill of Rights was thought of as a waste of time in comparison to other more pressing issues of the day by many. But, today, we recognize it as our Precious Bill of Rights.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Conterntious

In response to Conterntious posted by pink101:

.
Generally the people didn't trust any government.
.
No change there, IMO.
.
Largely, the opposition against them claimed the Bill of Rights would only be a "paper barrier" against a governmental power to over ride rights.
.
Given the current loss of freedoms, were they right or wrong?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - I Can Sniff Tyranny

In response to Conterntious posted by Migisi:
.
That's my point, Migisi.
.
There is a strong political force that is revisiting the argument as though it hadn't been settled.
.
I am not able to prove it; but, I think I see an attempt to reinterpret the Bill of Rights according to the anti-federalist position. States Rights have always been in the mix. And, it is in the area of States Rights where the conservative movement sees the lever for creating unconstitutional laws that might serve their purposes.
.
As a police officer in Illinois you might have known that you were bound to act on behalf of local and state laws which might have been unconstitutional. You did not have the authority to decide the constitutionality of any law; but, your duty was to follow the orders of some superior.
.
Persons apprehended and brought to trial under Illinois State law are not tried in federal courts; but, in local and state courts that are controlled by Illinois laws. A defendant is not allowed to cite the U.S. Constitutional guarantees in a state court. In order for someone to get relief from any unconstitutional and therefor illegal law, they have to make a federal case of their trial in order to access their civil rights. That isn't an easy thing to do. States Rights advocates see the state as being above the federal government when it comes to matters of law.
.
During the early days of the Republic, that was a problem most serious. Today, we tend to think of it as fluff. But, what I see is that our conservative forces want to revisit those arguments as though they have not been settled.
.
As an American, I can sniff tyranny in the distant breeze.
.

-- posted by pink101