You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #17: In the quote [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-29-04 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. In the quote
Edited on Tue Jun-29-04 12:30 PM by Q3JR4
"egarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit."

says it all. The national government is prohibited from setting up a national Christian religion, or even holding one religious view above all others. Yes, the states have the right to make decisions for themselves in regards to this issue and many others, but those decisions cannot trump the protections contained in the first amendment. Our court system does what it does not for any other purpose than to interpret the constitution.

As to history, a resolution was submitted to the constitutional convention that would have made a reference to the idea that this nation was founded on Christian principles. It would also have recognized God as the sole source of law. The resolution was soundly rejected.

Quote the founders in support of religion, and I'll quote you some of my own quotes showing just the opposite. By most historical accounts, the founders were diests. The closest thing (at the time) to aethiests.

Personally, I'm glad that we are where we are now in regards to this issue. If not we would still have slavery and a host of other national "sins" protected by biblical passages (slave owners had to stand before a court and quote biblical passages on slavery to get any equal rights case dropped).

Finally, as has been said here, it doesn't really matter. The courts interpret the law, that's their job. No matter what the founders said or believed, they expected the interpretation of the law to change. That's why we have three branches of government rather than two (as the religious right would have you believe).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC