Middle Eastern Owned News Agency.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sincere question: how many amendments have been made since it was created and how many since 1830s?

EDIT: I googled it, http://en.m.wikipedi...es_Constitution

(12 by 1830s, 27 in total).

Are all 27 amendments covered by this revelation?

I am not sure. But how it was founded and the amendments that were added by the founding fathers I would think were inspired. Some of the others might be too. Edited January 15, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're not being remotely ironic are you...

As a non-American I find that quite a scary attitude. Is that a Mormon thing or are you all brought up believing America is the power to save the world?

No. America can save the world is not what it means. What it means is that America is the last ditch hope for a free people and to try to bring freedom to the rest of the world. And I don't really care if you believe that or not. The sad part is that it seems we are losing our freedoms here in this country and I fear for our rights. Edited January 15, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, he sold it to them for 500 million in a rushed deal that would have prevented Mr. Gore from paying increased capital gains taxes for this year. Good business move, but it somewhat goes against his liberal mantra of taxing the rich.

Dont forget that MR globalwarming took oil money. How funny is that? Oh and the deal was done after the new year so that idiot still gets to pay more taxes.

[Hestia]

I moved to general discussion, but try to keep it out of politics.

[halconero]

we already did it once... Remember WWII? I think it is quite reasonable to believe that the US has already been one of the major influences changing the world for the better.

Ummm....I think the big credit has to be given to the communist Soviets and comrade Stalin on this one.

[bcuzbcuz]

Like CNN? I respectfully disagree.

I live outside the US, have done so for more than 45 years of my adult life. I currently get CNN, BBC, Euronews, Al Jazeera, Fox News, CNBC, Swedish SVT News, Swedish Rapport, and a few other specialty programs like 60 minutes and the Daily Show. The two news sources I trust the most for accuracy and not boring the hell out of me by repeating the same news reports and same footage 20 times a day, are Euronews and Al Jazeera.

Al Jazeera, at least the English version, also lends a particular newsworthy eye to situations around the world not seen on other channels on their "in Depth" segment. Most recently was their interview of

Hina Rabbani Khar Pakistan MP. She said, "only MPs can decide fate of Raja Parvez Ashraf after supreme court orders his arrest.

" If you want an entertaining interview not meant as entertainment, watch her interview from Pakistan.

[thesometimesaint]

Here's the stretch:

DC 101:77-80. In pertinent part:

In short, God "suffered" it to be established, in order to provide for the free exercise of agency. And he "suffered" it to be established by men whom God called "wise". Doesn't sound to me that He didn't have much to do with it. Sounds like He was directly involved.

In the "Guide to the Scriptures", found on lds.org, we find this commentin relation to the word "Constitution":

And what does the Lord think about the Constitution of the US, in relation to the rest of the world? See DC 98:5-7

In other words, God says here that the principles of the US Constitution are held by Him to be the standard; and that law which does not conform to that standard "cometh of evil".

And as to your assertion that the Constitution "...specifically prohibits the intertwining of Church and State"? Well, we're in the Social Hall, so this is not the place to issue a CFR, but I would if I could. In short, there is nothing in the US Constitution (and this includes the First Amendment), that prohibits the intertwining of Church and State. This intertwining prohibition of which you speak is a recent phenomenum based on nothing so much as faulty understandings. I also dispute your assertion that "... intertwining is something all of Christianity is determined to fulfill." At most, "all of Christianity" is attempting to hold on to the centuries-old intertwining which until recently was pretty much taken for granted. Like nativity scenes on government property, and so on.

But we should not argue about this here. I felt I had to bring these scriptures into the discussion because I didn't want your assertions, TSS, to go unanswered. If this is to be discussed further, then it needs to go to General Discussions.

But I'm not going to do it on my initiative. I don't feel I have the time for it at this moment -- having some family issues of greater importance. I've just discovered a little niche of time in which I can dabble briefly on the board. If you want to take this there, then I might show up -- though I think others are perhaps better qualified than I to answer.

Doesn't look like it has been transferred. So I'll respond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

http://www.alternet.org/5-people-who-bravely-fought-christian-takeover-america?paging=off

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[Saints Alive]

Ummm....I think the big credit has to be given to the communist Soviets and comrade Stalin on this one.

eh... Winners write history.

[volgadon]

Ummm....I think the big credit has to be given to the communist Soviets and comrade Stalin on this one.

Well, to the Soviet Union, at any rate. Not all considered themselves Soviet. At any rate, my wife's grandparents were both decorated.

[Stargazer]

Doesn't look like it has been transferred. So I'll respond.

http://en.wikipedia....ous_Test_Clause

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia....eaty_of_Tripoli

http://www.alternet....rica?paging=off

http://www.usconstit...t/jeffwall.html

So, since you've only addressed the "separation of church and state" issue here, I will assume you're conceding that God did, after all, have a direct hand in establishing the Constitution.

So, let's look at that separation thingy.

I wrote:

And as to your assertion that the Constitution "...specifically prohibits the intertwining of Church and State"? Well, we're in the Social Hall, so this is not the place to issue a CFR, but I would if I could. In short, there is nothing in the US Constitution (and this includes the First Amendment), that prohibits the intertwining of Church and State. This intertwining prohibition of which you speak is a recent phenomenum based on nothing so much as faulty understandings. I also dispute your assertion that "... intertwining is something all of Christianity is determined to fulfill." At most, "all of Christianity" is attempting to hold on to the centuries-old intertwining which until recently was pretty much taken for granted. Like nativity scenes on government property, and so on.

First of all, I would like to emphasize something here before digging into your posted links.

Your original claim was that there was a movement to more closely intertwine government and religion in these latter days. What I was objecting to was the notion that this was some great departure from the past, which you were implying had never been the case. In fact it is the other way around. Originally the Christian faith was far more integral to the political life of the country, and politicians used to fall all over themselves trying to outdo one another in public shows of deference to faith and church. Over time this has receded, until the point has been reached when if a politician expresses an errant religious thought he or she is excoriated by the press and the pundits (who are largely areligious). They would have had a field day with the first 30 presidents. You were saying that we needed to guard against increasing religious influence, as if there were some new critical danger of an Evangelical takeover or something. Utter nonsense.

Let me address your links.

http://en.wikipedia....ous_Test_Clause

This link refers to:

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

So, you're trying to say that this clause "...specifically prohibits the intertwining of Church and State"? No, it does not. It says that the federal government may not require that an officer of the government profess any religious belief. That whether he or she is a Christian, a Muslim, or an Atheist does not matter with respect to his or her government employment or office-holding. It does not mean, for example, that a nativity scene on government property is unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution

This deals with the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

This also does not constitute a "wall of separation" between Church and State, except to the extent that Congress is not permitted to specify an official "state church", nor may it interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not prohibit, for example, the Senate Chaplain from giving a religious invocation at the beginning of a session of the Senate.

http://en.wikipedia....eaty_of_Tripoli

The Treaty of Tripoli says:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims),—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I am assuming you think that since the treaty said America is not found on the Christian religion that this somehow supports the "wall of separation" argument?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't constitute or even document a "wall of separation" between Church and State. All it says is that since the country is not based on the Christian religion, then the tenets of the Christian religion will not govern how the treaty is interpreted by the US. Or as Frank Lambert, professor of History at Purdue wrote:

"The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

In other words, it doesn't support your argument.

http://www.alternet....rica?paging=off

What's there to argue about here?

1. Pinckney insisted on the "no religious test" clause. Good for him. Already handled above.
   
2. Madison was hesitant about proclaiming a day of fasting and prayer. Jefferson was too, in his day. And for the same reason: 1st Amendment establishment clause. Already handled.
   
3. Barlow in the Tripoli Treaty -- gee, we already handled it, too.
   
4. Grant didn't want to expend public funds for religious texts in public schools, or for supporting religious schools. Up to just a few years prior to this point in US history schools were all either private or operated by churches, so the question hadn't really come up before. In the event, Grant's idea was probably for the best, although not for the reason you are insisting upon -- providing copies of the Bible for a public school does not establish a state church, and neither does providing religious instruction in school, unless pupils are forced to attend. Providing five versions of the Bible for the various factions might be seen as a waste of government money, however, and would be a good reason for just avoiding the controversy.
   
5. Schemmp is Grant redux. Fine. Whatever.
   

http://www.usconstit...t/jeffwall.html

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is that big bugaboo which supposedly establishes the wall of separation. In reality all it does is establish Jefferson's opinion on the subject. It has no legal effect at all. The thing is, while Jefferson declined to declare days of thanksgiving and prayer while he was president, in defiance of presidential tradition inherited from Washington and Adams, while he was governor of Virginia he had no problem making such declarations. And Washington and Adams were both intimately involved in the creation of the Constitution. I believe that they had a much better idea of "original intent" than any modern (probably leftist) political science professor.

All that being said, however, I do believe that if government is going to force public education (rather than leave it up to parents), then it probably ought not to be forcing religious education in its schools. But this still does not establish a constitutional wall of separation.

[thesometimesaint]

So, since you've only addressed the "separation of church and state" issue here, I will assume you're conceding that God did, after all, have a direct hand in establishing the Constitution.

So, let's look at that separation thingy.

I wrote:

First of all, I would like to emphasize something here before digging into your posted links.

Your original claim was that there was a movement to more closely intertwine government and religion in these latter days. What I was objecting to was the notion that this was some great departure from the past, which you were implying had never been the case. In fact it is the other way around. Originally the Christian faith was far more integral to the political life of the country, and politicians used to fall all over themselves trying to outdo one another in public shows of deference to faith and church. Over time this has receded, until the point has been reached when if a politician expresses an errant religious thought he or she is excoriated by the press and the pundits (who are largely areligious). They would have had a field day with the first 30 presidents. You were saying that we needed to guard against increasing religious influence, as if there were some new critical danger of an Evangelical takeover or something. Utter nonsense.

Let me address your links.

This link refers to:

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

So, you're trying to say that this clause "...specifically prohibits the intertwining of Church and State"? No, it does not. It says that the federal government may not require that an officer of the government profess any religious belief. That whether he or she is a Christian, a Muslim, or an Atheist does not matter with respect to his or her government employment or office-holding. It does not mean, for example, that a nativity scene on government property is unconstitutional.

This deals with the First Amendment, which says:

This also does not constitute a "wall of separation" between Church and State, except to the extent that Congress is not permitted to specify an official "state church", nor may it interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not prohibit, for example, the Senate Chaplain from giving a religious invocation at the beginning of a session of the Senate.

The Treaty of Tripoli says:

I am assuming you think that since the treaty said America is not found on the Christian religion that this somehow supports the "wall of separation" argument?

No, it doesn't. It doesn't constitute or even document a "wall of separation" between Church and State. All it says is that since the country is not based on the Christian religion, then the tenets of the Christian religion will not govern how the treaty is interpreted by the US. Or as Frank Lambert, professor of History at Purdue wrote:

"The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers."

In other words, it doesn't support your argument.

What's there to argue about here?

1. Pinckney insisted on the "no religious test" clause. Good for him. Already handled above.
   
2. Madison was hesitant about proclaiming a day of fasting and prayer. Jefferson was too, in his day. And for the same reason: 1st Amendment establishment clause. Already handled.
   
3. Barlow in the Tripoli Treaty -- gee, we already handled it, too.
   
4. Grant didn't want to expend public funds for religious texts in public schools, or for supporting religious schools. Up to just a few years prior to this point in US history schools were all either private or operated by churches, so the question hadn't really come up before. In the event, Grant's idea was probably for the best, although not for the reason you are insisting upon -- providing copies of the Bible for a public school does not establish a state church, and neither does providing religious instruction in school, unless pupils are forced to attend. Providing five versions of the Bible for the various factions might be seen as a waste of government money, however, and would be a good reason for just avoiding the controversy.
   
5. Schemmp is Grant redux. Fine. Whatever.
   

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is that big bugaboo which supposedly establishes the wall of separation. In reality all it does is establish Jefferson's opinion on the subject. It has no legal effect at all. The thing is, while Jefferson declined to declare days of thanksgiving and prayer while he was president, in defiance of presidential tradition inherited from Washington and Adams, while he was governor of Virginia he had no problem making such declarations. And Washington and Adams were both intimately involved in the creation of the Constitution. I believe that they had a much better idea of "original intent" than any modern (probably leftist) political science professor.

All that being said, however, I do believe that if government is going to force public education (rather than leave it up to parents), then it probably ought not to be forcing religious education in its schools. But this still does not establish a constitutional wall of separation.

I fully believe God inspired those men. However that is a far cry from God establishing a government. During the debates about the Constitution it was proposed both that House members would serve 3 years and 1 year. Which one did God inspire? Did God inspire them to make blacks 3/5ths of a person, and the Amerinds not at all? Nowhere in the Constitution does it permit the Supreme Court to decide what is Constitutional. Why did God not inspire them to write that necessary judicial review?

Moreover we excluded the God given right of anyone to rule. We The People retain that right to ourselves. The Founders were well aware of the wars over religion that has scared Europe for over a millenia. While many were deeply religious men themselves they wanted no part of it dictating to government.

There has always been that tension in the US. Patrick Henry wanted to establish a tax in Virginia to pay to his church. Thomas Jefferson objected and ultimately won that argument. In that sense that is nothing new. What is new is the imposition that this is a Christian nation. It is not, nor has it ever been one. The Founders specifically rejected that idea.

If I had my druthers there would be no group prayers in government lead by any representative of the government. But if we have to have them then this is better. Chaplains are elected as individuals and not as representatives of any religious community, body, or organization. As of 2011, all Senate Chaplains have been Christian but can be members of any religion or faith group. Guest Chaplains, recommended by Senators to deliver the session's opening prayer in place of the Senate Chaplain, have represented "all the world's major religious faiths." What Congress critters do on their own time in their own homes is between them and their God. If they believe in such.

Yes it is an unconstitutional invasion of religion into the state. This has been repeatedly affirmed by the courts all the way up to and including the USSC. Judge Roy Moore found that out the hard way.

That is the heart of the matter. We can not impose any religion, including Christianity, in how government is run. It is a vital "Wall of Separation" The government can't tell me what to believe, and my(or anyone else) religion can't tell the government what to do. To put it bluntly; "You keep your religion out of my politics and I'll keep my politics out your religion".

I have no problem with studying the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or any other religious text in public schools. In fact I encourage it. As long as it is studied as literature, not as the "Word of God". Tell me could those "good" Christians that want the Bible taught in the science classroom say the same? So while I think it is silly, and counterproductive, to do so. I have no say over what private/religious schools teach.

Not even the Founders believed in "Original Intent". They fully endorsed and even put into the Constitution itself the mechanisms to change and adapt it to future considerations. The first 10 Amendments, just one of the two mechanism, to prove it. The second mechanism in the Constitution is a Constitution Convention. Outside of that first one it has never been tried.

The government isn't forcing public education. What it is forcing is education on either the private and/or public level. I went to a private parochial school in HS. The government didn't say BOO about it. For college I went to both public and private schools(BYU). Used my GI Bill benefits to do it. Again the government didn't say BOO about it. That Wall still stands despite the best efforts of fanatics to break it down.

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Valentinus