South Carolina Christians Playing The Discrimination Card

[_Sam Harris]

GoodK, as far as I'm concerned, there's not a thing wrong with being intolerant of you, asshat.

Don't hate that you're a weak little boy who can't so much as handle a difference in opinion (like his family ignoring his militant atheist rants) without wetting himself.

[_GoodK]

GoodK, as far as I'm concerned, there's not a thing wrong with being intolerant

Ignoring your seventh grade reading-level attempt at an insult, I hope your attention seeking here brings joy to your seemingly meaningless existence.

I can see those on-line courses are really paying for themselves ;)

[_Droopy]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." - First Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution.

And before you say something stupid about that only applying to the Legislative Branch of the US Federal Government...

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, United States Constitution.

Congress shall what Angus? Congress shall make no what Angus?

Up until the 1940s, it was generally accepted that none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights applied to anything but the national government. The privileges and immunities clause was added to address that ambiguity (and this has always been one of the most contentious clauses in the constitution).

And then there's the 10th amendment, which you have mysteriously left out of the equation.

As a matter of fact THERE IS such a legal principle in our nation's Constitution.

Then you need to adduce a logically coherent or factual argument demonstrating that fact, because as yet you have done nothing of the kind. You assassinated your own argument at the outset. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. If this applies to the states as well as to the federal government, then making a law opposing the plates - and hence restricting the speech of the Christians who want to have one, you have, according this logic, violated the first amendment. This first amendment though, and this is really the crux of the matter, has no conceivable connection to the present issue of license plates with Christian symbolism or messages, as simply the fact of the state of SC making them available does not constitute the establishment of religion (the first amendment, in this context, had a very narrow application, and was meant to prevent the establishment of an official state religion or the extension of special preferences or assistance (such as tax support) to any religious denomination. It never crossed the Founder's minds to prevent a local government from making a license plate available to individuals for a fee that expresses some general religious sentiment. While this could by understood to "favor" Christianity in an attitudinal sense, it doesn't establish Christianity or lend support to it in any political or material manner. No one is forcing me or intimidating me out of the LDS church and into the Baptist Church because of a licenses plate. My taxes are not going to fund the operations of the local Christian Worship Center. I am not offended by license plates that do not specifically support my own beliefs or Church.

I suspect you are under the spell of the phony "wall of separation" concept created by the courts out of whole cloth several generations ago, but this has no constitutional basis in its own right. There is no such thing as a wall of separation between religion and state; only a complete prohibition on the state making any law whatever that favors, supports, or officially recognizes a specific denomination or sect. There is a separation between specific religious denominations or organizations and the support of the state in the giving of any special status, prerogatives, or official imprimatur to that organization, but this is where the original intent of the amendment ceases. The plate implies no imprimatur except to those who have an interest in seeing one there.

Congress also can make no law respecting freedom of speech. This would logically have to include freedom of religious speech. A Christian license plate does not indicate establishment of religion or official government approval of a specific sect or organization, nor is government putting any pressure on me to accept anything but the doctrines and beliefs I choose. Opposing it then, would seem to be opposition to both free speech and little more than an expression of naked secularist anti-Christian bigotry (and let's cut to the chase, that's precisely what it is and nothing more).

Christians being in the majority is irrelevant. Showing favor towards one religion over all others is unconstitutional, i.e. illegal.

It has nothing to do with the first amendment as to its original intent and context. It is no more illegal than the Chaplain who opens every session of Congress or the Supreme Court with prayer.

As far as who is harmed, once precedence is set for an establishment of religion, anyone not belonging to that religion stands at risk of discrimination.

Quit foaming at the mourth Angus. This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy driven to distraction. There cannot be any discrimination because we here have no establishment of religion.

by the way, show where in which of the Federalist Papers that the original intent of the was to establish a christian nation, i.e. that they intended for there to be state endorsement of a specific religion.

This is a straw man. If you think a license plate that says "Praise the Lord" is indicative of some attempt to establish a theocracy, you'd better take your temperature. While this country was not founded as a "Christian" nation, it was founded as a nation with an acknowledged Christian cultural, moral, and religious center pivotal to its national character.

Screw minorities, right? You really are a bigoted prick.

I say burn all the witches...

If it didn't bother you in the least if they do make these plates, then why should it matter if they don't? If you really meant what you just said, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

I've already said that I don't have a dog in this fight. I really don't care if they make them or not. What I care about is half educated anti-Christian leftist bigots and intellectual hacks who's 60 Minutes knowledge of the Constitution and the philosophical background of its contents makes them unfit to hold a voter registration card. That's the only reason I'm in the debate. Get a life, and stop waking up in the night sweating with fear over the license plate you say today that said "God Loves You".

In closing, go read the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, take some classes on American History and Civics, and pull your head out of your ass.

You have never, as of yet, been educated on those issues Angus, but only indoctrinated, and you allowed that to happen because it was what you wanted to hear.

[_Droopy]

Forget most of what you learned in the government schools and submit yourself to some actual education. Remedial, it must be admitted, but necessary.


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Politi ... d/fp_6.pdf

[_Angus McAwesome]

Congress shall what Angus?

What, are you illiterate too?

Up until the 1940s, it was generally accepted that none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights applied to anything but the national government. The privileges and immunities clause was added to address that ambiguity (and this has always been one of the most contentious clauses in the constitution).

BS. The Bill of Rights Trump's state law. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was ratified in June of 1868, well before 1940, moron.

And then there's the 10th amendment, which you have mysteriously left out of the equation.

You really are dense...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Amentment Ten, Bill of right, United States Constitution.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause IS a law that all government agencies in the US are held, including the State Governments. You'll also notice that in Article Four of the US Constitution, which outlines the power given the states, that disobeying the Bill of Rights is not among the powers grants.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. If this applies to the states as well as to the federal government, then making a law opposing the plates - and hence restricting the speech of the Christians who want to have one, you have, according this logic, violated the first amendment.

Listen, you sophistic twat, "shall make no law" means that the Federal and State governments cannot enact any legislation granting special privilege to any specific religion, it does NOT mean that the Establishment clause means that the state and federal governments can show favoritism. Your right to worship freely is covered not by the Free Speech clause at all, it's covered by the Free Exercise Clause which states "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Since in the case of the South Carolina license plates, it's a state government agency using government resources to show favoritism to Christians above and beyond the established rights granted other religions then it is an establishment of religion and is unconstitutional by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This first amendment though, and this is really the crux of the matter, has no conceivable connection to the present issue of license plates with Christian symbolism or messages, as simply the fact of the state of SC making them available does not constitute the establishment of religion

The Christian plates are allowed to have text declaring their faith as well as their symbol. All other religions are only allowed to display the symbol of their faith. Hence, Christians are being shown preferential treatment by a government agency, which makes it a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Congress also can make no law respecting freedom of speech. This would logically have to include freedom of religious speech.

No one's right to free speech is being restricted. You can place all the pro-Christian bumper stickers on your car you like, roll down the street blasting christian rock, while scream PRAISE THE LORD out the window of your car, that's not restricted at all. But a license plate is a government issues document, made using government resources, and falls under the Establishment Clause since one religion is being shown preferential treatment over all others.

Opposing it then, would seem to be opposition to both free speech and little more than an expression of naked secularist anti-Christian bigotry (and let's cut to the chase, that's precisely what it is and nothing more).

Because preventing Christians from discriminating against other is in fact discrimination, amiright.

Moron.

It is no more illegal than the Chaplain who opens every session of Congress or the Supreme Court with prayer.

Since Congress has opened session with prayers from Chaplains of other faiths then just Christianity, that example fails.

This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy driven to distraction.

The United States was founded by men who left England partly to escape from religious persecution, because England had a state religion, and historically the Anglicans didn't take well to people of other faiths. That is why the founding fathers of our nation included the Establishment Clause, because they'd seen that discrimination at the hands of a state sanctioned religion before and wanted to prevent it from happening here.

Not a slippery slope at all, it's historically documented fact, moron.

There cannot be any discrimination because we here have no establishment of religion.

And the license plates proposed by South Carolina in the OP would set a precedent for an establishment of religion by showing preferential treatment to Christians above and beyond what is granted to other religions.

by the way, show where in which of the Federalist Papers that the original intent of the was to establish a christian nation, i.e. that they intended for there to be state endorsement of a specific religion.

This is a straw man. If you think a license plate that says "Praise the Lord" is indicative of some attempt to establish a theocracy, you'd better take your temperature. While this country was not founded as a "Christian" nation, it was founded as a nation with an acknowledged Christian cultural, moral, and religious center pivotal to its national character.

BS. it's not a straw man at all, idiot. You said the the Federalist Papers showed the original intent of the framers in regard to establishment of religion. I'm demanding evidence of your claim. So either show the quotes or be counted as a liar.

I've already said that I don't have a dog in this fight. I really don't care if they make them or not. What I care about is half educated anti-Christian leftist bigots and intellectual hacks who's 60 Minutes knowledge of the Constitution and the philosophical background of its contents makes them unfit to hold a voter registration card.

Ah... So now you're back to the "You just a leftist" ad hominem BS.

Idiot.

You have never, as of yet, been educated on those issues Angus, but only indoctrinated, and you allowed that to happen because it was what you wanted to hear.

Which is why you've demonstrated time and again that you know know nothing at all about American Civics, Constitutional Law, and made a claim about the Federalist Papers that you couldn't back? You're an idiot who like to look in his word a day calendar for big words to use in order to bluff your way into an appearance of education, when in fact all you are is a woefully uneducated, intellectually dishonest, and bigoted hack.

[_Droopy]

In fact, incorporation began in 1925 and progressed slowly, case by case, up until a watershed case, Adamson v. People of the State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S. Ct. 1672, 91 L. Ed. 2d 1903 [1947]), which Justice Black, in an assertive dissent, said that the 14th amendment applied to the entire Bill of Rights and all of the states. Frankfurter disagreed. Incorporation, before that time, was piecemeal and incremental.

To this day, not all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been fully incorporated.

But this is mostly moot, because you have accepted the completely modern leftist fiction of the wall of separation between Church and state, which you, as with most other leftist seeking to politicize the judiciary so that it becomes an engine for the support of ideological friends and the punishment or sanction of ideological enemies, have interpreted as the separation of religion and state. If the first amendment applies to the states, so be it, but there is no rational way to attach a claim of state establishment of religion to the license plates because Christianity is divided into hundreds of sects with varying doctrines, practices, and views of substantive theological subjects. Plates with general statements of Christian sentiment show no state preference for, or establishment of, a sect, denomination, or specific confession of faith, and that is the only concern the writers of the constitution had. They were not concerned with any kind of absolute separation, or institutional compartmentalizations of religion qua religion, between the state and private religious sphere, so long as no preference was shown to a specific organized body.

It is none of the courts constitutional business to stick its meddling, porcine fingers into the issue because the constitution gives the court no jurisdiction. Its a state issue, reserved to the state and the people. If a majority finds it unfair, they can change it within deliberative democratic institutions. The black robed cultural commissars need to mind there own business.

This issue isn't a legal one, but a psychological and ideological one: angry, bigoted leftists who froth at the site of Christian symbols or speech seeking to poke Christians in the eye with the the unaccountable fiat authority of the courts grounded in an interpretation of the establishment clause that never existed.

[_Angus McAwesome]

But this is mostly moot, because you have accepted the completely modern leftist fiction of the wall of separation between Church and state, which you, as with most other leftist seeking to politicize the judiciary so that it becomes an engine for the support of ideological friends and the punishment or sanction of ideological enemies, have interpreted as the separation of religion and state.

So basically you can't make a rational and factually grounded rebuttle so instead your playing the "you're a leftist" ad hominem.

I win.

[_EAllusion]

The term "wall of separation" has origins that predate this, but the reason the term is used is because of this letter written by Thomas Jefferson. '

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Quite relevant if you are concerned with what the founding fathers thought about the establishment clause. Take note that we should all be wary of Mr. Jefferson. He was a radical liberal revolutionary that openly tried to overthrow a government. But it renders the statement, "I suspect you are under the spell of the phony "wall of separation" concept created by the courts out of whole cloth several generations ago, but this has no constitutional basis in its own right," false.

Coggins, as I predicted, is going after the incorporation doctrine. States can set up little theocracies and not be in violation of the US constitution as far as he is concerned. But that should be kept distinct from his comment: "Sorry, but your position has no constitutional basis. Oh, I think what you mean is the ACLU's traditional interpretation of the First Amendment. Yes, but that is not part of the constitution either, as to its original intent (which we know, because we have the Federalist Papers and a large number of the political writings of the Founders)." The incorporation doctrine is based on changes to the constitution that long postdate the original document.

[_EAllusion]

I think I'll cut Coggins off at the pass here:

In recent years some accommodationists have attempted to discount the significance of Jefferson's Danbury letter by arguing that the "wall of separation" metaphor was intended only to assure Baptists that the Constitution would prohibit Congress from establishing Congregationalism as the national religion. On this line the "wall" metaphor is to be read as an endorsement of non-preferentialism, as opposed to a reference to the general absence of federal power over religion.

We don't know who first made this argument, but it was popularized by anti-separation activist David Barton in his 1992 book, The Myth of Separation. On page 41 of Myth he argues as follows:

Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the Constitution had made it clear that no one Christian denomination would become the official denomination, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor that a particular denomination was soon to be recognized as a national denomination. On January 1, 1802, President Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists in a letter. He calmed their fears by using the now infamous phrase to assure than the federal government would not establish any single denomination of Christianity as the national denomination (p. 41).

True to form, Barton's assertion contradicts virtually everything we know about the Danbury letter. First, there is no evidence that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because of a rumor that "a particular denomination was soon to be declared a national denomination." Barton does not evidence this claim, and the argument is implausible on it's face: the First Amendment had been in effect for about a decade, and it was universally understood that Congress had no ability to declare a national religion (see Thomas Curry, The First Freedoms, ch. eight; Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, chs. 4-5). It is difficult to believe, in other words, that any group of well informed citizens--let alone Baptists, who were generally knowledgeable on issues of religious freedom--would have taken such a preposterous rumor seriously.

Second, a good deal of Jefferson's correspondence with religious groups during his presidency is extant, and nowhere in this correspondence do we find Jefferson addressing rumors of a national religious establishment. If a national establishment was the context of the Danbury letter, the Danbury Baptists were, so far as we can tell, alone in that concern.

Third, and more important, a copy of the Danbury Baptist's letter to Jefferson survives, and it utterly contradicts Barton's reading. The letter does not mention a national establishment; rather, the letter is concerned with the lack of religious liberty Baptists enjoyed in the state of Connecticut. The Baptist complaint was that the Connecticut state constitution did not prohibit the state from legislating about religious matters. As a consequence, they argued, "...what religious privileges we [Baptists] enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen."

The "degrading acknowledgements" referenced here refers to a system of religious taxation that forced many Connecticut Baptists to support the established Congregationalist church. According to church/state scholar Derek Davis, Connecticut law allowed the Baptists to rout their religious taxes to their own churches, but this involved locating and filling out an exemption certificate, and many Connecticut communities either made it difficult to obtain the certificates, or refused to approve the exemptions once submitted (see, "What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," Liberty, Jan/Feb, 1997, p. 13). Beyond this, the Baptists found the law unjust and discriminatory in that it favored Congregationalism over other denominations. According to Davis, the Connecticut Baptists began a petition campaign in 1800 to put pressure on the state legislature to rescind the tax. The letter to Jefferson appears to have been a part of that campaign:

Knowing that an attempt to convince the Federalist majority in Connecticut to remove the state's establishment laws might fail, the Danbury Association thought that they could achieve their goal by siding with the Jeffersonians and eventually driving the Federalists out of power. The Danbury Baptists' letter to Jefferson was, then, not only a gracious statement of appreciation for like-mindedness on a burning issue; it was also a well-planned political move ("What Jefferson's Metaphor Really Means," p. 13).

In the third paragraph of the letter the Baptists observe that Jefferson "is not the national legislator" and that "the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state," further indicating that the concern of the Danbury Baptists was the state's Congregationalist establishment. Their hope, apparently, was that Jefferson might use both his own moral influence as a beloved founder and the bully pulpit of his office to convince the Connecticut legislature to rescind the establishment:

(O)ur hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarch and tyranny be destroyed from the earth.

Ironically, in his 1996 book, Original Intent, Barton rejects his 1992 interpretation of the Danbury letter. Nowhere in the book does he reference any rumor about a national establishment. Rather, Barton now argues the Baptists first wrote Jefferson to express their concern that the First Amendment might be interpreted to allow Congress to regulate religious expression! This view, over course, is absurd, and we refute ithere.

In summary, there is no evidence that the context of the Danbury letter was a rumor of a national establishment. On the contrary, the concern of the Danbury Baptists was religious oppression in the state of Connecticut. Jefferson used the letter as an opportunity to express his own views that the First Amendment created a "wall of separation between church and state." This was no mere assurance that Congress could not establish a national religion. It was a response to the very thesis of the Baptists' letter: that religious rights are by nature inalienable. The Baptists wanted that view to prevail in Connecticut. Jefferson's metaphor assured them that this was already true on the national level, and that the federal government had no right to legislate on religious matters in any way.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg12.htm

[_Sam Harris]

GoodK, as far as I'm concerned, there's not a thing wrong with being intolerant

Ignoring your seventh grade reading-level attempt at an insult, I hope your attention seeking here brings joy to your seemingly meaningless existence.

I can see those on-line courses are really paying for themselves ;)

LOL, you're the one with no future after you die honey.