Oklahoma town to buy statue of Jesus and place it downtown.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Well good ole TJ was not the only framer of our government, so frankly his own personal views and writings carry little weight when discussing the Constitution and other Federal Papers thats were written by a group of men. Now we could look to them to draw upon some intent and what TJ may have wanted but I think its quite short sighted to assume TJ's views were shared exactly by all the founding fathers wouldnt you?

As for my hipocrisy, I'm not seeing it. I will let the voters spend their money as they see fit, whereas I am forced to pay for projects and programs that you *think* I should pay for. The real problem is you arent a voter nor are you a tax payer in this township and yet you want the control to tell them what they can and cannot do.

And you claim *I'M* the one denying them their freedoms??

That's not Jefferson's "personal views," that's the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 1779.

So if the voters vote to take ALL of your money and give to other people, you'd be okay with then? I'm not supporting that you or anyone pay for projects and programs that ANY majority of voters thinks you or anyone should pay for. I'm telling you that you are one of those people who think that people should be forced by taxation to pay for projects and programs they don't support just because it was voted on (and read the article, pal, the people didn't vote here, the city council did, 6-2).

So yes, you ARE denying people their freedoms. In this case, the people who don't support this kind of public expenditure. Just like those terrible liberals support public expenditures you don't support are denying people their freedoms.

Is this fucking rocket science or something? Freedoms are universal.

This may come as a shock but this township is not within the jurisdiction of Virginia, so frankly TJ's papers mean fuck all in regards to Oklahoma's laws.

Is the city council not elected? I did not realize this township appointed its council members from a king or queen.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Specop 007

This (long) post pretty well describes why liberals fucking disgust me.

You claim its somehow underhanded to require a man to pay taxes for a religous symbol, but you have no problems forcing a man to pay taxes so that money may be given to another.

Hypocrisy of the highest degree. You truly are no better then those who want to spend money on religious...art, or statues, or whatever in the hell they wish to call it.

Your inability to understand basic constitutional principles is puzzling.

I admit my lack of understanding. I dont know why this is the best post you can come up with......

Other people's arguments didn't seem to be making a dent, but I'll give it a go at least with regard to your post above and why it is not applicable.

You start by saying "You claim its somehow underhanded to require a man to pay taxes for a religous symbol".

No one is saying it is "underhanded", the contention is that using public funds to purchase a religious piece of art is violative of the 1st amendment and subsequent Supreme Court precendent interpreting the scope of government power with regard to religiously tinged acts. The amendment barring an "establishment of religion" cannot possibly be read in so narrow a manner as to mean that the only thing Congress is barred from doing is literally passing a law establishing an official religion, yet allowing congress to to mandate school prayer, tithes to a specific church, and other actions which would clearly have the effect of favoring a specific religion, or any religion. It is the idea of preventing government "placing it's imprimatur" on religion that is the intent of the amendment.

You then say "you have no problems forcing a man to pay taxes so that money may be given to another."

Whether or not anyone has a problem or disagrees with such a use of public funds or tax revenue, there is no way to plausibly interpret anything in the constitution that would indicate that such a usage of public funds is prohibited. Tax revenue is applied every day for projects many Americans disagree with, i.e. wars, endowment of the arts, various earmarks or pet projects. But disagreeing with how tax money is spent does not equal claiming that such usage is unconstitutional. Maybe I don't want Congress funding a bridge in Alaska, but it is not unconstitutional for them to do so. Allocating public money for a religious item is not simply a disagreeable use of funds, it is unconstitutional based on current understanding of US law, as OK should know by now since they have been challenged and defeated on two similar recent attempts mentioned in the OP.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic

By your own logic, both of you have little regard for the Constitution.

I see it's gonna be pretty hard to compete with Specop007's blind stupidity here.

Says the guy whos using Virginia Statues to dictate laws in Oklahoma?? :confused:

Again, SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION.

Where in the Constitution is it illegal to do what this township did. Dont give me your personal views or laws from other states. Show me laws in our Constitution where what this township did is illegal. Hell, you can use Oklahoma state laws or state constitution for all I care.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Well good ole TJ was not the only framer of our government, so frankly his own personal views and writings carry little weight when discussing the Constitution and other Federal Papers thats were written by a group of men. Now we could look to them to draw upon some intent and what TJ may have wanted but I think its quite short sighted to assume TJ's views were shared exactly by all the founding fathers wouldnt you?

As for my hipocrisy, I'm not seeing it. I will let the voters spend their money as they see fit, whereas I am forced to pay for projects and programs that you *think* I should pay for. The real problem is you arent a voter nor are you a tax payer in this township and yet you want the control to tell them what they can and cannot do.

And you claim *I'M* the one denying them their freedoms??

That's not Jefferson's "personal views," that's the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 1779.

So if the voters vote to take ALL of your money and give to other people, you'd be okay with then? I'm not supporting that you or anyone pay for projects and programs that ANY majority of voters thinks you or anyone should pay for. I'm telling you that you are one of those people who think that people should be forced by taxation to pay for projects and programs they don't support just because it was voted on (and read the article, pal, the people didn't vote here, the city council did, 6-2).

So yes, you ARE denying people their freedoms. In this case, the people who don't support this kind of public expenditure. Just like those terrible liberals support public expenditures you don't support are denying people their freedoms.

Is this fucking rocket science or something? Freedoms are universal.

This may come as a shock but this township is not within the jurisdiction of Virginia, so frankly TJ's papers mean fuck all in regards to Oklahoma's laws.

Is the city council not elected? I did not realize this township appointed its council members from a king or queen.

/facepalm * 2
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
There is no such thing anywhere in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. What it says is the government not establishing a religion. Religion and Christianity specifically were tightly interwoven into our early government. Our Founders had a firm belief in the role of religion and were intenet on ensuring nothing like the Church of England would happen. What they did not intend is to promote the secularization we see today which in actuality is simply another religion anyway. One where man is predominant and not our Lord.

That is what the fight is over.

If public funds are spent on a religious icon or activity, then govt is in effect establishing a religion. The reason the Founding Fathers were intent on ensuring that nothing like the Anglican Church would happen was because the Anglican Church collected its tithes through the govt's system of taxation. What this town is trying to do is effectively the same thing. Now, if a church or private funds want to pay for this, raising their money through voluntary donations and not the force of taxation, then that would be just fine.

And I hate to break it to you, but many of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers were what we would call secular humanists today. You don't overthrow centuries of monarchy by divine right and replace it with a govt for, of, and by the people because of a deep religious faith in the concept of Adonai.
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Those are all references to the Masonic Deist God, not the Christian God.

sigh...you are completely missing the point.

Religion was deeply intertwined among our Founders. They recognized the dangers of a state sponsored church and so placed assurances in the Constitution to prevent that. But nowhere did they say that not only is a state (federal) church is prohibited, but even the mention of God of any form is not allowed.

Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

See my reply above to specop regarding what "establishment" means. What it does not mean is "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion." Read some SC cases on the issue of the 'establishment clause'.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
There is no such thing anywhere in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. What it says is the government not establishing a religion. Religion and Christianity specifically were tightly interwoven into our early government. Our Founders had a firm belief in the role of religion and were intenet on ensuring nothing like the Church of England would happen. What they did not intend is to promote the secularization we see today which in actuality is simply another religion anyway. One where man is predominant and not our Lord.

That is what the fight is over.

If public funds are spent on a religious icon or activity, then govt is in effect establishing a religion. The reason the Founding Fathers were intent on ensuring that nothing like the Anglican Church would happen was because the Anglican Church collected its tithes through the govt's system of taxation. What this town is trying to do is effectively the same thing. Now, if a church or private funds want to pay for this, raising their money through voluntary donations and not the force of taxation, then that would be just fine.

And I hate to break it to you, but many of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers were what we would call secular humanists today. You don't overthrow centuries of monarchy by divine right and replace it with a govt for, of, and by the people because of a deep religious faith in the concept of Adonai.
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Those are all references to the Masonic Deist God, not the Christian God.

sigh...you are completely missing the point.

Religion was deeply intertwined among our Founders. They recognized the dangers of a state sponsored church and so placed assurances in the Constitution to prevent that. But nowhere did they say that not only is a state (federal) church is prohibited, but even the mention of God of any form is not allowed.

Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

An Approval of Religion by Government is being attempted. That is "Establishment".
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic

By your own logic, both of you have little regard for the Constitution.

I see it's gonna be pretty hard to compete with Specop007's blind stupidity here.

Says the guy whos using Virginia Statues to dictate laws in Oklahoma?? :confused:

Again, SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION.

Where in the Constitution is it illegal to do what this township did. Dont give me your personal views or laws from other states. Show me laws in our Constitution where what this township did is illegal. Hell, you can use Oklahoma state laws or state constitution for all I care.

No, moron, I didn't use Virginia Statue to dictate law in Oklahoma. The issue put forward was the intent of the Founding Fathers in establishing a separation of church and state. The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom was cited as a clear example of such, and you ignorantly slighted it, first as "why liberals fucking disgust me," then that it as merely one of Jefferson's "own personal views and writings [that] carry little weight when discussing the Constitution and other Federal Papers thats were written by a group of men," and now that you realize it's actually one of the oldest laws in our land, enthusiastically voted upon and passed by some of the biggest names among the Founding Fathers, and was what lead to the creation of the Establishment clause in the 1st amendment, you're backtracking further with this straw man that I'm trying to claim Virgina law applies in Oklahoma. WTF.

And the answer to your "simple fucking question" is the Establishment clause in 1st amendment. Duh.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.

Here's one
Oh, one more
But the vast majority are not.

And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Other people's arguments didn't seem to be making a dent, but I'll give it a go at least with regard to your post above and why it is not applicable.

You start by saying "You claim its somehow underhanded to require a man to pay taxes for a religous symbol".

No one is saying it is "underhanded", the contention is that using public funds to purchase a religious piece of art is violative of the 1st amendment and subsequent Supreme Court precendent interpreting the scope of government power with regard to religiously tinged acts. The amendment barring an "establishment of religion" cannot possibly be read in so narrow a manner as to mean that the only thing Congress is barred from doing is literally passing a law establishing an official religion, yet allowing congress to to mandate school prayer, tithes to a specific church, and other actions which would clearly have the effect of favoring a specific religion, or any religion. It is the idea of preventing government "placing it's imprimatur" on religion that is the intent of the amendment.

You then say "you have no problems forcing a man to pay taxes so that money may be given to another."

Whether or not anyone has a problem or disagrees with such a use of public funds or tax revenue, there is no way to plausibly interpret anything in the constitution that would indicate that such a usage of public funds is prohibited. Tax revenue is applied every day for projects many Americans disagree with, i.e. wars, endowment of the arts, various earmarks or pet projects. But disagreeing with how tax money is spent does not equal claiming that such usage is unconstitutional. Maybe I don't want Congress funding a bridge in Alaska, but it is not unconstitutional for them to do so. Allocating public money for a religious item is not simply a disagreeable use of funds, it is unconstitutional based on current understanding of US law, as OK should know by now since they have been challenged and defeated on two similar recent attempts mentioned in the OP.

Do you have a link to the SC cases. I'm curious about that.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Do you have a link to the SC cases. I'm curious about that.

There's a long line of cases and many are specific to certain issues, but here's a site with a good amount of summary in chart format:

http://members.tripod.com/candst/tableidx.htm

The go-to case that articulates the meaning of the clause and announces a test for application to various laws is Lemon v Kurtzman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

No discussion of Lemon though is complete without reading Scalia's metaphor as to its usefulness, one of my favorite pieces of SC authorship:

"As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening thelittle children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed "test" but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so.

The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it; when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely. Sometimes, we take a middle course, calling its three prongs "no more than helpful signposts." Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him."


Love him or hate him, the man can write.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: dphantom
sigh...you are completely missing the point.

Religion was deeply intertwined among our Founders. They recognized the dangers of a state sponsored church and so placed assurances in the Constitution to prevent that. But nowhere did they say that not only is a state (federal) church is prohibited, but even the mention of God of any form is not allowed.

Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

No, I'm not missing any point.

If a religion wants to do this kind of thing, then they can raise the money privately and pay it for themselves, nothing is stopping them from doing that. That expressly was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Since the passage of the 14th amendment, this has expanded to local govts (along with a number of rights that were previously not protected at the state and local level, I might add).

Look, the fact that you insist that public funds should pay for this, when private funds should be (and certainly are) freely available, undermines your whole argument. There's no need to force the public to pay for this, so why are you trying to do it? The only answer I can possibly think of that makes sense is to undermine the Establishment clause.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

See my reply above to specop regarding what "establishment" means. What it does not mean is "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion." Read some SC cases on the issue of the 'establishment clause'.

Since you seem to actually want to discuss it (As opposed to that flaming fucking idiot Vic) let me pose this.

I agree, Congress cannot do much in regards to religion. However, this township is not Congress. WHich brings up the question how far does the Constitution go to ruling states. More to the point, if the Constitution is considered the basis upon which state laws are set why bother with state laws at all? I can understand the federal government not being able to put up a statue of Jesus but should that also prohibit states or local townships? How far does this trickle down.

Secondly, and I'm certainly not trying to bring gun right sinto this but only use this as an exmaple, how is it the federal government is prohibited from banning firearms via the 2nd Amendment but states and townships are able to ban them or prohibit certain ones? It would seem theres a double standard in that the Constitution says (And this is real simple) "You cant ban firearms ownership" but states dow however the Constitution says "Cany establish a religion" and state governments cannot......

Which is why I find this whole subject so interesting. I would like to see the cvases which support your claim of "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion". What you say does indeed make sense, however I'm curious as to the papers the court put forth in regards to it.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
There is no such thing anywhere in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. What it says is the government not establishing a religion. Religion and Christianity specifically were tightly interwoven into our early government. Our Founders had a firm belief in the role of religion and were intenet on ensuring nothing like the Church of England would happen. What they did not intend is to promote the secularization we see today which in actuality is simply another religion anyway. One where man is predominant and not our Lord.

That is what the fight is over.

If public funds are spent on a religious icon or activity, then govt is in effect establishing a religion. The reason the Founding Fathers were intent on ensuring that nothing like the Anglican Church would happen was because the Anglican Church collected its tithes through the govt's system of taxation. What this town is trying to do is effectively the same thing. Now, if a church or private funds want to pay for this, raising their money through voluntary donations and not the force of taxation, then that would be just fine.

And I hate to break it to you, but many of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers were what we would call secular humanists today. You don't overthrow centuries of monarchy by divine right and replace it with a govt for, of, and by the people because of a deep religious faith in the concept of Adonai.
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Those are all references to the Masonic Deist God, not the Christian God.

sigh...you are completely missing the point.

Religion was deeply intertwined among our Founders. They recognized the dangers of a state sponsored church and so placed assurances in the Constitution to prevent that. But nowhere did they say that not only is a state (federal) church is prohibited, but even the mention of God of any form is not allowed.

Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

An Approval of Religion by Government is being attempted. That is "Establishment".

No, it is recognition of an event significant to the community. No one is being forced to attend, convert, pray or whatever. If a Jew, Muslim or Hindu asked for the same consideration, then it would also be ok for a like contribution.

In reality, so many groups woudlhave their hand out that most communities would simply so no to everything and that is perfectly fine too.

Hamilton forsaw some of the problems we are having today in his Federalist Paper 84 regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. I am coming more to his opinion that we should never have had those rights included as a separate document as the Constitution already defines what rights the Government has and everything else belongs to the people.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

See my reply above to specop regarding what "establishment" means. What it does not mean is "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion." Read some SC cases on the issue of the 'establishment clause'.

Since you seem to actually want to discuss it (As opposed to that flaming fucking idiot Vic) let me pose this.

I agree, Congress cannot do much in regards to religion. However, this township is not Congress. WHich brings up the question how far does the Constitution go to ruling states. More to the point, if the Constitution is considered the basis upon which state laws are set why bother with state laws at all? I can understand the federal government not being able to put up a statue of Jesus but should that also prohibit states or local townships? How far does this trickle down.

Secondly, and I'm certainly not trying to bring gun right sinto this but only use this as an exmaple, how is it the federal government is prohibited from banning firearms via the 2nd Amendment but states and townships are able to ban them or prohibit certain ones? It would seem theres a double standard in that the Constitution says (And this is real simple) "You cant ban firearms ownership" but states dow however the Constitution says "Cany establish a religion" and state governments cannot......

Which is why I find this whole subject so interesting. I would like to see the cvases which support your claim of "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion". What you say does indeed make sense, however I'm curious as to the papers the court put forth in regards to it.

2 wrongs don't make a right. You gain nothing in your quest for furthering gun rights if you attack religious rights at the same time.

And don't call me a flaming fucking idiot while you're spouting bullshit, flaming people for being hypocrites while you're being a hypocrite yourself.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Well good ole TJ was not the only framer of our government, so frankly his own personal views and writings carry little weight when discussing the Constitution and other Federal Papers thats were written by a group of men. Now we could look to them to draw upon some intent and what TJ may have wanted but I think its quite short sighted to assume TJ's views were shared exactly by all the founding fathers wouldnt you?

As for my hipocrisy, I'm not seeing it. I will let the voters spend their money as they see fit, whereas I am forced to pay for projects and programs that you *think* I should pay for. The real problem is you arent a voter nor are you a tax payer in this township and yet you want the control to tell them what they can and cannot do.

And you claim *I'M* the one denying them their freedoms??

That's not Jefferson's "personal views," that's the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 1779.

So if the voters vote to take ALL of your money and give to other people, you'd be okay with then? I'm not supporting that you or anyone pay for projects and programs that ANY majority of voters thinks you or anyone should pay for. I'm telling you that you are one of those people who think that people should be forced by taxation to pay for projects and programs they don't support just because it was voted on (and read the article, pal, the people didn't vote here, the city council did, 6-2).

So yes, you ARE denying people their freedoms. In this case, the people who don't support this kind of public expenditure. Just like those terrible liberals support public expenditures you don't support are denying people their freedoms.

Is this fucking rocket science or something? Freedoms are universal.

This may come as a shock but this township is not within the jurisdiction of Virginia, so frankly TJ's papers mean fuck all in regards to Oklahoma's laws.

Is the city council not elected? I did not realize this township appointed its council members from a king or queen.

/facepalm * infitinity

This is turning into special olympics.

The bolded part is proof that the author should remove himself from the genepool. The Jefferson papers are only the explanation for the judicial and social framework of this country and also a clue as to where the text of the 1st amendment came from. Your ignorance offends me...

PS: Sprinkling your posts with 'liberal' or 'fucking liberal' do not make you seem any smarter or correct.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

See my reply above to specop regarding what "establishment" means. What it does not mean is "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion." Read some SC cases on the issue of the 'establishment clause'.

Since you seem to actually want to discuss it (As opposed to that flaming fucking idiot Vic) let me pose this.

I agree, Congress cannot do much in regards to religion. However, this township is not Congress. WHich brings up the question how far does the Constitution go to ruling states. More to the point, if the Constitution is considered the basis upon which state laws are set why bother with state laws at all? I can understand the federal government not being able to put up a statue of Jesus but should that also prohibit states or local townships? How far does this trickle down.

Secondly, and I'm certainly not trying to bring gun right sinto this but only use this as an exmaple, how is it the federal government is prohibited from banning firearms via the 2nd Amendment but states and townships are able to ban them or prohibit certain ones? It would seem theres a double standard in that the Constitution says (And this is real simple) "You cant ban firearms ownership" but states dow however the Constitution says "Cany establish a religion" and state governments cannot......

Which is why I find this whole subject so interesting. I would like to see the cvases which support your claim of "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion". What you say does indeed make sense, however I'm curious as to the papers the court put forth in regards to it.

What you are writing about is what is known as the "incorporation doctrine" in which various amendments over time have been applied by the Supreme Court, via the 14th amendment, to control state behavior in addition to federal.

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

Your question on the 2nd amendment is answered there as well.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is recognition of an event significant to the community. No one is being forced to attend, convert, pray or whatever. If a Jew, Muslim or Hindu asked for the same consideration, then it would also be ok for a like contribution.

In reality, so many groups woudlhave their hand out that most communities would simply so no to everything and that is perfectly fine too.

Hamilton forsaw some of the problems we are having today in his Federalist Paper 84 regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. I am coming more to his opinion that we should never have had those rights included as a separate document as the Constitution already defines what rights the Government has and everything else belongs to the people.

They are being forced to pay for it.

In reality, that is why we're saying no to this kind of thing. It is better just to say no to everything that to favor a single group.

Hamilton was a strong federalist with a relatively low regard for individual and states rights.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic

2 wrongs don't make a right. You gain nothing in your quest for furthering gun rights if you attack religious rights at the same time.

And don't call me a flaming fucking idiot while you're spouting bullshit, flaming people for being hypocrites while you're being a hypocrite yourself.

I attack neither in this thread, I am simply trying to gain aa better understanding. One you, unsuprisingly, are unable to proviude.

But you routinely strike me as a truly uneducated fucking idiot. Maybe you are, maybe not. When I think that there is a missing link out there between man and monkey and you come along and post I just think "I'VE FOUND IT! THE MISSING LINK!!". Really. Surely I'm wrong but hey, thats what I think.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
[

I agree, Congress cannot do much in regards to religion. However, this township is not Congress. WHich brings up the question how far does the Constitution go to ruling states. More to the point, if the Constitution is considered the basis upon which state laws are set why bother with state laws at all? I can understand the federal government not being able to put up a statue of Jesus but should that also prohibit states or local townships? How far does this trickle down.

Secondly, and I'm certainly not trying to bring gun right sinto this but only use this as an exmaple, how is it the federal government is prohibited from banning firearms via the 2nd Amendment but states and townships are able to ban them or prohibit certain ones? It would seem theres a double standard in that the Constitution says (And this is real simple) "You cant ban firearms ownership" but states dow however the Constitution says "Cany establish a religion" and state governments cannot......

Which is why I find this whole subject so interesting. I would like to see the cvases which support your claim of "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion". What you say does indeed make sense, however I'm curious as to the papers the court put forth in regards to it.

1. State law cannot directly violate/override federal law (Constitutional laws are federal and therefore cannot be overridden by state/local).

2. See Heller v. DC -- no state/local govt can ban the ownership of....but they can prohibit the right to carry in public places

3. Pretty thorough background on the topic
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: dphantom
Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

See my reply above to specop regarding what "establishment" means. What it does not mean is "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion." Read some SC cases on the issue of the 'establishment clause'.

Since you seem to actually want to discuss it (As opposed to that flaming fucking idiot Vic) let me pose this.

I agree, Congress cannot do much in regards to religion. However, this township is not Congress. WHich brings up the question how far does the Constitution go to ruling states. More to the point, if the Constitution is considered the basis upon which state laws are set why bother with state laws at all? I can understand the federal government not being able to put up a statue of Jesus but should that also prohibit states or local townships? How far does this trickle down.

Secondly, and I'm certainly not trying to bring gun right sinto this but only use this as an exmaple, how is it the federal government is prohibited from banning firearms via the 2nd Amendment but states and townships are able to ban them or prohibit certain ones? It would seem theres a double standard in that the Constitution says (And this is real simple) "You cant ban firearms ownership" but states dow however the Constitution says "Cany establish a religion" and state governments cannot......

Which is why I find this whole subject so interesting. I would like to see the cvases which support your claim of "Congress cannot establish a religion by law but is free to do everything short of that which includes articulating a preference for a particular religion". What you say does indeed make sense, however I'm curious as to the papers the court put forth in regards to it.

What you are writing about is what is known as the "incorporation doctrine" in which various amendments over time have been applied by the Supreme Court, via the 14th amendment, to control state behavior in addition to federal.

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

LOL shit I knew that too. Goddamn, forgot all about the 14th.
Ok, I'm going to put on my dunce hat and go sit in the corner over there *points*
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If they voted for it, whats the problem? Ohhh, YOU dont like how THEY want to spend THEIR money is that it?

Gotchya.

So quick to defend the 2nd but even quicker to piss on the portions of the constitution that you dont support?

Shhh. Don't clue him in.

No kidding, if Buttfuck Oklahoma was spending $3,900 trying to take the town's guns away, SpecOp would be red in the face and the spittle would be flying. :laugh:

Ahh, so its ok to trample on my rights, but not to trample on yours?

We're all equal, but some are more equal then others yes?

Typical liberal.

Oh fuck you. Stop being such a dumbass, I fully support your 2nd amendment right to bear as many arms as you possibly can. Now don't clutter up my town square with your ignorant religious idoltry and we'll be even.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh fuck you. Stop being such a dumbass, I fully support your 2nd amendment right to bear as many arms as you possibly can. Now don't clutter up my town square with your ignorant religious idoltry and we'll be even.

Its not your town square, and its not my religious idoltry. :)

You assume far too much.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh fuck you. Stop being such a dumbass, I fully support your 2nd amendment right to bear as many arms as you possibly can. Now don't clutter up my town square with your ignorant religious idoltry and we'll be even.

Its not your town square, and its not my religious idoltry. :)

You assume far too much.

I meant it figuratively - "my" as in "all of ours" and "your" as in "those fanatical religious dudes over there."

:D