Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

[genuineoriginal]

That dog don't hunt. They specifically prohibited religious tests for office.

The prohibition against religious tests for office was to prevent the exclusion of people because they didn't hold to a particular religion.

Your interpretation is the opposite of the intent and you are trying to use it to exclude people of all religions.

 

[Granite]

The prohibition against religious tests for office was to prevent the exclusion of people because they didn't hold to a particular religion.

Or to make sure non-believers could get elected in the first place.

Your interpretation is the opposite of the intent and you are trying to use it to exclude people of all religions.

Completely incorrect (as usual). Prohibiting a religious test is an excellent idea for a free society. Whether someone believes in Allah or nothing shouldn't prevent them from running for or holding office.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The prohibition against religious tests for office was to prevent the exclusion of people because they didn't hold to a particular religion.

Your interpretation is the opposite of the intent and you are trying to use it to exclude people of all religions.

I think you missed the point of 'freedom of religion.' It means you have the right to express and practice your religion up to the point that it infringes on somebody else's rights. That's why Satan worshippers can't steal your dog for a sacrifice

 

[ClimateSanity]

Or to make sure non-believers could get elected in the first place.



Completely incorrect (as usual). Prohibiting a religious test is an excellent idea for a free society. Whether someone believes in Allah or nothing shouldn't prevent them from running for or holding office.

If you understood the times in which that law was written, you would see that GO is right. You are looking throug the modern lens of antagonistic antitheism to come your understanding.

 

[Granite]

If you understood the times in which that law was written, you would see that GO is right. You are looking throug the modern lens of antagonistic antitheism to come your understanding.

I see we have another graduate of the David Barton School of Scholarship.:yawn:

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think you missed the point of 'freedom of religion.'

You are assuming freedom FROM religion, which is the exact opposite of freedom Of religion.

The amendment was added to protect religious freedom, not to prevent it as you would do.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Or to make sure non-believers could get elected in the first place.

If you read the debates from the states that ratified the constitution, you will find that they mentioned that no non-believer would ever be elected and that the "no religious test" for office clause was there to ensure that no believer could be excluded.

 

[brewmama]

I think you missed the point of 'freedom of religion.' It means you have the right to express and practice your religion up to the point that it infringes on somebody else's rights. That's why Satan worshippers can't steal your dog for a sacrifice

But they were quite clear that morality and religion were important in maintaining a free people that could govern themselves. To say that religion was supposed to be divorced from policy is absurd.

 

[Granite]

If you read the debates from the states that ratified the constitution, you will find that they mentioned that no non-believer would ever be elected and that the "no religious test" for office clause was there to ensure that no believer could be excluded.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are assuming freedom FROM religion, which is the exact opposite of freedom Of religion.

The amendment was added to protect religious freedom, not to prevent it as you would do.

So Satan worshippers have the religious freedom to steal your dog and sacrifice it, right?

 

[Greg Jennings]

But they were quite clear that morality and religion were important in maintaining a free people that could govern themselves. To say that religion was supposed to be divorced from policy is absurd.

Some of the most notable forefathers weren't religious. And unless you can tell me how "separation of church and state" isn't supposed to mean "religion is divorced from policy" then I'll have to disagree

 

[Greg Jennings]

You are assuming freedom FROM religion, which is the exact opposite of freedom Of religion.

The amendment was added to protect religious freedom, not to prevent it as you would do.

So Satan worshippers have the religious freedom to steal your dog and sacrifice it, correct?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So Satan worshippers have the religious freedom to steal your dog and sacrifice it, right?

You want to come over and try to steal my dog?

You might find it more difficult than you think.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You want to come over and try to steal my dog?

You might find it more difficult than you think.

You'd have the right to shoot me and that's fine, unless I'm covered by freedom to express my religion. Then you'd be prison bound. You avoided the question (predictably).

Let's try this again, do I, if I'm a Satan worshipper, have the religious freedom to steal your dog for a sacrifice?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You'd have the right to shoot me and that's fine, unless I'm covered by freedom to express my religion. Then you'd be prison bound. You avoided the question (predictably).

Let's try this again, do I, if I'm a Satan worshipper, have the religious freedom to steal your dog for a sacrifice?

That depends on the laws of the state I live in.

In writing the First Amendment, the goal was to define limits on what the Federal government could do.

The Federal government was not permitted to make any laws restricting the free exercise of religion.

This constraint was not placed on the States.

The States had every right to establish a State religion, if they so chose, and to establish what activities would be considered crimes, such as stealing and animal cruelty.

So, the Federal government could do nothing about you stealing my dog for your satanic ritual, but the State government could.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Some of the most notable forefathers weren't religious. And unless you can tell me how "separation of church and state" isn't supposed to mean "religion is divorced from policy" then I'll have to disagree

You are asking us to disprove a very narrow interpretation of that phrase of several possible. It is up to you to prove your narrow interpretation is the only possibly correct one among many.

 

[ClimateSanity]

So Satan worshippers have the religious freedom to steal your dog and sacrifice it, correct?

They do not have the right to violate your rights with their religious practice.

 

[brewmama]

Some of the most notable forefathers weren't religious. And unless you can tell me how "separation of church and state" isn't supposed to mean "religion is divorced from policy" then I'll have to disagree

Whether they were religious or not, there were plenty who had a lot to say about morality and freedom. Please give some examples of those who didn't think that way.

Since "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution and was not an issue until the latter part of the 20th century, and the Constitution and the explanatory writings of the founders gave freedom to the states to set their own religion (or church), I don't think I need to show anything. You do.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The States had every right to establish a State religion, if they so chose, and to establish what activities would be considered crimes, such as stealing and animal cruelty.

The founders disagree.

'"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church". Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

So, the Federal government could do nothing about you stealing my dog for your satanic ritual, but the State government could.

Back to my question I posed to you: since you love religious freedom for everyone and you must respect the religion of others, why shouldn't satanists be allowed to steal pets for sacrifices?

 

[Greg Jennings]

They do not have the right to violate your rights with their religious practice.

Correct! Which is why Christians have no right to try and take away rights from others based on their own religious beliefs.