Calm Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect governments from religions. CFR please.
Gray Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've already answered this at least twice now. But I'll say it again for your benefit. In the days following the Trump election, the SPLC was blustering about "the Trump effect" in public schools, in effect accusing the president-elect of inciting bullying in schools. This liberal advocacy group, a 501 (3) (c) organization, was thus vilifying Trump. Now, you could argue, I suppose, that the SPLC was technically not violating the Johnson Amendment, as Trump was no longer a candidate for office, having been elected. But I maintain that its action violates the spirit of the amendment, as Trump will likely run for re-election in four years. I see. Thank you for your patience and thanks for posting it again. It sounds like they're riding closer to the "edge" than church leaders generally care to do. I wonder if this kind of thing is technically permissible under the Johnson amendment? Is it close enough to invite trouble? I'm not sure. 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it you can't cite any examples then. Neither can I. That's correct.
thesometimesaint Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 SEE Article 6 of Constitution, 1st Amendment of Constitution, and Treaty of Tripoli. Provide the info yourself if issued a CFR. Don't expect others to do the work for you. ~Mods
Scott Lloyd Posted February 6, 2017 Author Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE Article 6 of Constitution, 1st Amendment of Constitution, and Treaty of Tripoli. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Read it again. It pertains to what Congress is allowed to do, not to what churches or other religious groups are allowed to do. It doesn't protect the government from religion. Article 6 prohibits a religious test for holding public office, but again, that pertains to what the government is permitted to do, not what individual citizens may do. Not sure what you are driving at with Treaty of Tripoli. Maybe you or someone else could explain. Edited February 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 2
Calm Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE Article 6 of Constitution, 1st Amendment of Constitution, and Treaty of Tripoli. Please provide the specific quote.
Calm Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Read it again. It pertains to what Congress is allowed to do, not to what churches or other religious groups are allowed to do. It doesn't protect the government from religion. Article 6 prohibits a religious test for holding public office, but again, that pertains to what the government is permitted to do, not what individual citizens may do. Not sure what you are driving at with Treaty of Tripoli. Maybe you or someone else could explain. The treaty says something about the US not being founded on the Christian religion. Again, says nothing about protecting government from religion. Or religions getting involved later on. 1
MormonVideoGame Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 On 2/6/2017 at 1:56 PM, Scott Lloyd said: The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Read it again. It pertains to what Congress is allowed to do, not to what churches or other religious groups are allowed to do. It doesn't protect the government from religion. Article 6 prohibits a religious test for holding public office, but again, that pertains to what the government is permitted to do, not what individual citizens may do. Not sure what you are driving at with Treaty of Tripoli. Maybe you or someone else could explain. On 2/6/2017 at 2:55 PM, Calm said: The treaty says something about the US not being founded on the Christian religion. Again, says nothing about protecting government from religion. Or religions getting involved later on. Just because the US constitution allows something doesn't mean it's right, the US Constitution allowed slavery for more than a century, see Article I, Section. 2 and Article IV, Section. 2 . Religion has no business in the government, and vice versa, see John 18:36. The least corrupt countries in the world are non-authoritarian and not very religious, see Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Liberty and secularism lead to prosperity.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: Just because the US constitution allows something doesn't mean it's right, the US Constitution allowed slavery for more than a century, see Article I, Section. 2 and Article IV, Section. 2 . Religion has no business in the government, and vice versa, see John 18:36. The least corrupt countries in the world are non-authoritarian and not very religious, see Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Liberty and secularism lead to prosperity. We have freedom of speech in this nation. And that applies to all of the citizenry, including people of faith. It sounds like you're advocating a gag order on people of faith. That strikes me as authoritarianism -- and crappy authoritarianism at that. We also have freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Likewise, all of these liberties apply to people of faith along with everyone else. That you or anyone would liken any First Amendment liberty to slavery is astounding. I don't accept from you what strikes me as an anti-First Amendment mindset. I pledge my everlasting opposition to such a mindset. It is egregiously un-American. For that matter, are you even a citizen of the United States? Have you been here before under a different screen name? Edited February 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Sleeper Cell Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said: Just because the US constitution allows something doesn't mean it's right, the US Constitution allowed slavery for more than a century, see Article I, Section. 2 and Article IV, Section. 2 . Religion has no business in the government, and vice versa, see John 18:36. The least corrupt countries in the world are non-authoritarian and not very religious, see Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Liberty and secularism lead to prosperity. Liberty and religion also lead to prosperity. BTW, isn’t the US constitution (which by your admission allowed slavery) essentially a secular document? And by your reasoning, wasn’t the US anti-slavery movement (which ultimately ended slavery) an “intrusion” of religion into government? 2
halconero Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina. Boom. State religion. There will be no more religious divisions once you all accept the common book of prayer. But seriously, I'm pretty the majority of the Constitution and primarily the Bill of Rights consists of restraints on government rather than private entities. That said, I'm not a fan of religion intruding into the realm of politics and more particularly party politics. Advocating moral and societal points, sure. Donating to individuals or parties, no. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 25 minutes ago, halconero said: Elizabeth II Dei Gratia Regina. Boom. State religion. There will be no more religious divisions once you all accept the common book of prayer. But seriously, I'm pretty the majority of the Constitution and primarily the Bill of Rights consists of restraints on government rather than private entities. That said, I'm not a fan of religion intruding into the realm of politics and more particularly party politics. Advocating moral and societal points, sure. Donating to individuals or parties, no. Joe the plumber is a devout Catholic. His decisions at the polling booth are influenced, among other things, by his religious faith. Do you approve or disapprove?
MormonVideoGame Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We have freedom of speech in this nation. And that applies to all of the citizenry, including people of faith. It sounds like you're advocating a gag order on people of faith. That strikes me as authoritarianism -- and crappy authoritarianism at that. We also have freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Likewise, all of these liberties apply to people of faith along with everyone else. That you or anyone would liken any First Amendment liberty to slavery is astounding. I don't accept from you what strikes me as an anti-First Amendment mindset. I pledge my everlasting opposition to such a mindset. It is egregiously un-American. For that matter, are you even a citizen of the United States? Have you been here before under a different screen name? I didn't say people of faith don't have freedom of speech. I said religion has no business in the government, I also have the right to express my opinion. It's still true the least corrupt countries are non-authoritarian and mostly secular. What did Jesus mean in John 18:36?
halconero Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Joe the plumber is a devout Catholic. His decisions at the polling booth are influenced, among other things, by his religious faith. Do you approve or disapprove? Not at all. Joe is a private citizen. The Catholic Church is an institution. Nor would I disapprove of the Catholic Church speaking out on a moral or societal issue. I would take issue with the Catholic Church endorsing a specific party, individual or donating to them.
rockpond Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: Liberty and religion also lead to prosperity. BTW, isn’t the US constitution (which by your admission allowed slavery) essentially a secular document? And by your reasoning, wasn’t the US anti-slavery movement (which ultimately ended slavery) an “intrusion” of religion into government? The Bible was used to defend slavery. I think religion informed both sides of the slavery argument. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 12 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said: Liberty and religion also lead to prosperity. BTW, isn’t the US constitution (which by your admission allowed slavery) essentially a secular document? And by your reasoning, wasn’t the US anti-slavery movement (which ultimately ended slavery) an “intrusion” of religion into government? There is no indication that such is the case. The US Constitution was designed to be a secular document, as it appeals to no God or Sovereign for its authority. It resides in "We the People". The elimination of slavery in the US was a long time in coming. In fact the US was rather late to the party. Religious arguments were made on both sides of the issue, but ultimately it was the economics that solved the problem. Poor white Southerners couldn't economically compete against slave owners.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 5 hours ago, rockpond said: The Bible was used to defend slavery. I think religion informed both sides of the slavery argument. The fact that religion was used to defend (i.e., excuse) slavery does not mean that slavery was religiously motivated. It is not like the “Triangle Trade” was intended as a missionary outreach. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single anti-slavery group that was motivated primarily by secular considerations. 2
Sleeper Cell Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: The US Constitution was designed to be a secular document, as it appeals to no God or Sovereign for its authority. It resides in "We the People". The elimination of slavery in the US was a long time in coming. In fact the US was rather late to the party. Religious arguments were made on both sides of the issue, but ultimately it was the economics that solved the problem. Poor white Southerners couldn't economically compete against slave owners. Which explains why poor white Southerners refused to fight for the South. Oh wait … Ultimately, it was economics that solved the problem? That would have been news to the 650,000 who were killed during the Civil War and to the millions of soldiers who suffered permanent disabilities and lifelong chronic illnesses. If anything, economics is arguably the primary reason why the elimination of slavery was a “long time in coming” -- in particular, the great increase of productivity due to the invention of the cotton gin. As you point out, the US Constitution was “designed to be a secular document, as it appeals to no God or Sovereign for its authority.” A great pity that this secular document condoned slavery. Perhaps had it made such an appeal to God -- say, by including a few lines from the Declaration of Independence -- the elimination of slavery may not have been such a “long time in coming.” “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…”) comes to mind. 3
rockpond Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: The fact that religion was used to defend (i.e., excuse) slavery does not mean that slavery was religiously motivated. It is not like the “Triangle Trade” was intended as a missionary outreach. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single anti-slavery group that was motivated primarily by secular considerations. I wasn't suggesting that slavery was religiously motivated. Just that religion was used by some to justify it. As it was used by others in their motivations to end slavery.
rockpond Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Sleeper Cell said: The fact that religion was used to defend (i.e., excuse) slavery does not mean that slavery was religiously motivated. It is not like the “Triangle Trade” was intended as a missionary outreach. On the other hand, I can’t think of a single anti-slavery group that was motivated primarily by secular considerations. I wasn't suggesting that slavery was religiously motivated. Just that religion was used by some to justify it. As it was used by others in their motivations to end slavery.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 13 hours ago, halconero said: Not at all. Joe is a private citizen. The Catholic Church is an institution. Nor would I disapprove of the Catholic Church speaking out on a moral or societal issue. I would take issue with the Catholic Church endorsing a specific party, individual or donating to them. I agree. But I also might take issue with some non-religious advocacy groups, including purely secular ones, endorsing a specific party or individual or donating to them. I don't know why it is that religious groups should bear a special onus when it comes to involvement in politics. We have a tradition, stemming from our Founding Fathers, of eschewing the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, but in this day and age, under present circumstances, that possibility is about as remote as it can get. Meanwhile, there is nothing in our Constitution that forbids any or all religions from making their influence felt in the public arena. It only forbids government from favoring one specific religion over another. 2
MormonVideoGame Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But I also might take issue with some non-religious advocacy groups, including purely secular ones, endorsing a specific party or individual or donating to them. laws also apply to secular groups that are tax-exempt 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: We have a tradition, stemming from our Founding Fathers, of eschewing the establishment of a state-sponsored religion, but in this day and age, under present circumstances, that possibility is about as remote as it can get. Meanwhile, there is nothing in our Constitution that forbids any or all religions from making their influence felt in the public arena. It only forbids government from favoring one specific religion over another. Yes, people of faith have freedom of speech, but religious countries (including the USA) are more corrupt than secular (or less religious) non-authoritarian countries. Religions in the government cause problems like the Palestine-Israel conflict http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Global_Peace_Index_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies
Scott Lloyd Posted February 8, 2017 Author Posted February 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: laws also apply to secular groups that are tax-exempt Yes, people of faith have freedom of speech, but religious countries (including the USA) are more corrupt than secular (or less religious) non-authoritarian countries. Religions in the government cause problems like the Palestine-Israel conflict http://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Global_Peace_Index_rankings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#List_of_countries_and_dependencies What corruption in the U.S. government has been caused by religion? For that matter what religion is there in the government of the United States?
MormonVideoGame Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What corruption in the U.S. government has been caused by religion? All I am saying is that secular (or less religious countries) are doing much better. The US is a very religious country, or moderately religious according to the maps 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: For that matter what religion is there in the government of the United States? Christianity does influence legislation and courts. Courts still use the Bible. Please tell me what did Jesus mean in John 18:36?
MormonVideoGame Posted February 8, 2017 Posted February 8, 2017 * All I am saying is that secular (or less religious) non-authoritarian countries are doing much better.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: * All I am saying is that secular (or less religious) non-authoritarian countries are doing much better. So you're determined to dodge the question then. Quote What corruption in the U.S. government has been caused by religion? For that matter what religion is there in the government of the United States? I guess you have no answer.
Recommended Posts