Ultimate Joe wrote:



Yes, judges ought to use a "hefty amount of respect" toward history and tradition when reviewing laws to determine their constitutionality. They should look to the Constitution itself (the language) and interpret it in a way that accords great respect to our historical traditions. Like the Shakespeare example, it is not the Constitution that is on trial it is the personal views of the Justices. To assert that historical tradition and practice should be a factor weighed in jurisprudence is an established legal requirement. In fact if you read the case law in this regard you will always see at least "lip service" given to this requirement in the realm of substantive due process and fundamental rights under the 14th amendment. The best example of pure lip service given to the concept is in the Goodridge opinion out of Massachusetts. Not to beat a dead horse, as I did in that same sex marriage thread, I have to suggest you look at that opinion because it is the best example of judges talking about the importance of history and tradition when identifying fundamental rights but then not actually following through in their opinion.


Ultimate Joe wrote:



Well it certainly could have been read in a way so as to find wiretapping unconstitutional. Such a reading would have been consistent with the intent of the Framers under the Fourth Amendment.

Ultimate Joe wrote:



"Presto- chango"-- yeah good way to describe the way the judicial activists view the constitution to further their political agendas. Sorry that is not the way it works. A fundamental right must first be identified-- before a judge can go forward with a constitutional reading that a law is not unconstitutional. My point is that finding a fundamental right of our citizenry to be free from the government intercepting our telephone conversations against our will is consistent with the text of the 4th amendment and consistent with our history of interpreting that amendment and what the framers would have thought.

Ultimate Joe wrote about the origin of the "right" to an abortion:



Again, I ask you -- where does the right to an abortion originate from in our Constitution and our history and tradition? The answer-- as any good lawyer will tell you -- is that it is no where spelled out in our Constitution. It comes from the famous opinion by Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut-- He said there is a right to privacy that issues from the famous penumbra of rights in our Bill of Rights. Douglas is just a judge writing in the 1960s who created this supposed right and the famoous penumbra. PRESTO CHANGO -- Douglas waives his magic wand (or should I say sceptre) and voila-- he created a RIGHT in our Constitution that guarantees that a woman can have an abortion on demand. Baloney.

Ultimate Joe wrote:





Don't be silly. This country has had no history or tradition of legal abortions and that is what Roe was asking for. Come on, you can do better than that.
I am disappointed.

I agree the court should be equal in judgment of both views left or right but they are men and women from our citizenry that have differing views. For example when you look at the Fed Ex sign of a package you may see five letters and I may see five letters and an arrow neatly placed between the capitol E and lower case x.

They are just people that judge cases other judges and juries (common law) have already viewed. These justices should, upon learning the majority consensus of the justices pass it on to the jury, the Senate and appear before the body to explain positions for reasoning they used to come to conclusion.

The Senate are just men and women from our citizenry that have differing views also that we elected, our attorneys that have the ability to read the Constitution also and are brilliant to comprehend what the position of the Justices is.

If such a burden of up or down vote in the Congress be basis for law then the people will all consider it a just law and not a Left law or a Right law passed by a group of God’s like Brut; Ancus Marcius; Lucius Tarquinius Priscus; Lucius Tarquinius Superbus of ancient Rome. Perhaps then the American would become more involved in electing representative government than cursing the court as being activist.

The term separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. The term derives from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists explaining why, unlike his predecessors, Washington and Adams, he would not declare a national day of thanksgiving. Let me give the letter in it's entirety. I suspect many have never read it. From the Library of Congress:



Adams clearly had a different viewpoint. Let me quote Adams as he declared May 9, 1798 a day of prayer and fasting.



The fact is the founding fathers argued about this issue just as we do. The Federalists, as demonstrated by the actions of Washington and Adams, primarily viewed religion as having a function in government. Washington's Farewell Address pointed out religions importance in the affairs of the people. The Federalist's reviled Jefferson as an atheist in both of his campaigns against Adams.

I think we need to remember that Jefferson also wanted a limited role for the federal government. That he was also a believer that the federal government was restricted to the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8 (though as President he occassionally violated these principles). At the time of the founding fathers the Bible was commonly used as a textbook in schools. No one could have held this as a violation of church and state because the federal government had no role in education and before the 14th Amendment there could be no claim against state or local governments violating the rights of religious minorities by allowing the Bible in schools.

The fact is government was supposed to be limited. Under the theory of separation of church and state an all powerful government is not neutral but squeezes out religion. The term "godless communism" takes on a significant meaning here.

This interesting question invokes many philosophical issues. As one reply noted, a government can adopt the values and philosophies of a religion without creating a theocracy. After all, many sociologists believe the protestant work ethic breeds capitalism; surely we don't think that capitalism was founded on Christianity. The point I am getting at here is that the founding fathers were trying to be as secular as they could, modern language would use "politically correct", but that this effort was limited. (However it was not futile.) The society in which we live affects us in many more ways that we consciously know. Our society acts as the undercurrent to our value system. For example, ancient Collationes ate their dead. They whole-heartedly believed that this was the proper and moral thing to do upon a person's transcendence. So, according to my reasoning, it follows that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values because the culture in which they lived abided by such values. By the founding fathers not mentioning scripture or any ideal that is remotely solely Jude-Christian, they were trying to create as much a secular government as they were able while having a value framework that originated from religion. To finally answer the question, the minds of the founding fathers were not on creating a Judeo-Christian-based government, but the set of values and ideals they incorporated did originate from Judeo-Christen thought, and the FFs subconsciously included those as well.

I believe that the Constitution is a "living document" Haleyanne and as such, must be interpreted at times in a broad, instead of literal sense. Overly broad and you get the kind of "judicial activism" that Justice Scalia frets about, but just because the Supreme Court rules one way at one time does not mean that all subsequent court decisions must be respected. Particularly if the Court's decision was a miscarriage of justice:

In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

The principle of stare decisis should be respected, but only when it's a case that was decided correctly in the first place. The Dred Scott decision has been proven as one of the all-time worst decisions of the Supreme Court.

Nighttimer

Interesting that you bring up the Dred Scott decision. Scalia took a question from the audience about how his view of reading the constitution would have been applied with Dred Scot. In the case of Dred Scott-- the jurisprudence met Scalia's requirements:

(1) a careful reading of the text of the Constitution
and
(2) a reading that comports with historical tradition (the Constitution definitely anticipated slavery with its reference to Fugitives).

The court was faced with a dilemna-- read the constitution accurately and commit what may be a moral wrong or not read the constitution accurately and do what is morally right. Strangely, back then, with all their talk and belief in a morally correct answer -- in right and wrong --- society was not settled as to the question of the morality of slavery. Very interesting. His response was that if he were faced with that decision-- he would resign and work toward changing the law to institute what was morally right.

You are really on to something nighttimer. Is there such a thing as A MORAL RIGHT OR WRONG? Or does that answer change as society changes? What is your view? I suspect you are like most of us in this era and take a post modern view. What is that philosopher -- Nietsche, I think, that says that there is no moral right or wrong-- only what society accepts? I think this issue is well worth exploring.

I think there is an easy explanation to the wording of the Constitution and our dislocation from the time period forces us away from the reality of the time. The reality was each state considered itself a country and had a need for a central government to deal with issues of international trade, security (military defense) and tariff management on imports. The term, the state will have many powers and the federal government will have little rings true in America as in the EU, that’s how the states viewed the federal government at the time.

The reason the Constitution doesn’t have a right for abortion is because America adopted common law. Each state was to be governed by common law that already contained specific laws dealing with abortion. The federal Constitution merely required all states to adopt a bill of rights with basic minimum freedoms equal to the federal rights and agree the federal rights could not be minimized in any of the states. So a representative government was established similar as existed in each state to represent the collection of states. The federal rule was no to state and federal adoption of an individual Christian religion denomination (only Christian and Jewish were of choice at the time with Christianity in major majority) would be endorsed or supported by the government. End of United States Constitution story.


The Supreme Court just wasn’t founded to do what it does today. America was founded on Common Law that requires a jury to hear violations of law and a representative government, mostly state government to create the laws the judges and juries would try. The Supreme Court was not founded to interpret the Constitution; each state had and still has a Constitution that merely must live within the limits of the bill of rights established in the federal Constitution. The federal government could create laws also by legislation created by representative state senators and representatives that superceded state laws. Remember common law was adopted not Roman Civil Law and common law requires creation by the majority through attorneys or senators or representatives and trial by a jury if charged in violation. For the FF to consider the Supreme Court the Constitution Police they would have had to say the Supreme Court has Roman Civil Law authority.

Think of the EU and their constitution and ask yourself if you were in a country that wanted to join would you if you knew the EU Supreme Court could enact law that your country had no control? France could be the new leader of the captivated world if that would sprout wings.

Timeline: The Northern states were industrialized and the Southern states were where you need to go to get cotton and European nations were creating “possessions” like Haiti, Vietnam, Montserrat, all of Africa was being carved up by Europe. The Northern states needed protection for export-import tariffs and the South needed only export tariff and sea security. Then there were the millions of people coming to the great opportunity of the New World. These folks were moving to free land to the west and armies were needed to provide security. These facts were the draw for the need of a union.

States, or countries like Connecticut, New York, Georgia and Virginia needed a navy to keep trade going as capitalism is supposed to function. There were pirates outside of every port and international trade was a problem with individual states.

The need for a central government was:

Immigration
Navy to control commerce and Army to provide security for expansion and a force to prevent a Western Europe nation from taking over one state at a time.
Tariff to pay for security of northern industrialization and to protect the export of cotton the option of animal skins for clothing of the time.

The Constitution was wrapped around those issues and not much more. Without phones there was a lot of shuttle diplomacy via horse & buggy and compromise from the individual states (countries) and the founding fathers. By no vast reach of the imagination could one conclude individual states (countries) at a significant loss to what they already had would have agreed to this federal authority had it significantly impacted on their sovereignty. Very basic stuff, we stick together, create a military and navy, control immigration, commerce tariffs to fund the mess and all members agree to not adopt a protestant or Catholic theocracy so we don’t end up like Old Europe

Edited to add for your considerations are the FF's conditions in negotiations with member states. Changes are in highlighted orange.

Haleyanne, I share your admiration for the immense intellectual brilliance of Justice Scalia. Though I suspect we are polar opposites politically, no one can question Scalia's standing as a judge possessing one of the finest legal minds ever to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

That said, I found your account of how Justice Scalia would have handled the Dred Scott decision as terribly disappointing. The fact that Scalia would place his personal philosophy over opposing and correcting a monstrous miscarriage of justice that played a role in the genesis of the Civil War, makes me fear that Scalia places his principles over the needs of the nation in a time of crisis.

The Supreme Court is where citizens turn to in times of Constitutional crisis. It can't choose to duck making a call merely because it is unpopular or controversial.

In the book, A People's History of the Supreme Court, author Peter Irons writes at length and in great detail the legal contortions Chief Justice Roger Taney went through to concoct the horror that was the Dred Scott decision. Irons wrote, "He misread history, twisted legal precedent and bent the Constitution out of shape, all to achieve his predetermined goal of promoting the extension of slavery into the territories. Historians have uniformly agreed...that Taney presented 'an argument weak in its law, logic, history, and factual accuracy."

"To be more blunt, Taney's opinion was a travesty of the judicial craft, riddled with obvious errors and outright lies."

I don't think it is enough that Scalia would have resigned from the Court in protest rather than confront and challenge such a fatally flawed and disastrously written opinion as the Dred Scott decision. Perhaps his personal integrity would remain intact, but I submit his greater contribution to fighting an unjust law is on the bench and not on the outside looking in.

I think I'm just happy Scalia wasn't on the bench when Brown vs. Board of Education was decided by a 9-0 Supreme Court which had been led into consensus by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The rickety consensus Warren cobbled together to demonstrate to the nation the Supreme Court was united in its rejection of segregation might have been denied him by Justice Antonin Scalia's inflexibility.

What Friedrich Nietzsche might have thought of Antonin Scalia's reticience to confront the moral wrong of slavery head-on, I could only conjecture. I hope he would share my disappointment that a man blessed with such intellectual power is unmoved by an opportunity to challenge evil when presented to him.

I think you pick and choose condemnation. A hundred years from now debaters will argue that Clinton and the gay Senators and representatives were bigots and misrepresented the Constitution when they passed and signed the law “don’t ask don’t tell”.
Ours is a nation in transition, a nation of equality and yet it is a nation in progress to those ends.

The Civil War wasn’t based on the freeing of the slaves. It was based on the North being industrialized and the South being fat on cotton exports and the difference of tariffs due along with the spread of slavery into the Western frontier. Abe didn’t say any slaves, in fact he used Southern POW’s to unload and guard slaves in the North as the war progressed. The war was started on basis of secular insurgents striking the South plantation owners and the Western movement of America with slavery.

The court is not higher than the elected officials for if it were the Supreme Court seeing don’t ask don’t tell would have voluntarily advised it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I see no merit in what comparison you make.

The Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional!

Edited to add orange colored sentence.

 

Nighttimer wrote:





Well said and well written nighttimer. You have a nice way with words and I enjoyed reading your post.

Let's clarify some premises here though. Your premise is that the Dred Scott decision was wrongly decided from a legal perspective. And that may have been the case. Scalia's comment was more broad and it was responding a different hypothetical i.e. what to do if a case is correct legally but morally wrong what does one do? Dred Scott was cited because most agree that it was morally wrong-- no real discussion as to whether it was correctly (legally) decided.

Scalia said he would not deviate from the proper mode of judicial review and impose his view of what is morally correct if the Constitution said otherwise. You say that Taney contorted the Constitution in his reading-- and if so, all the more reason why judges ought not to have such overwhelming power. If your premiseis correct and Taney contorted the Constitution-- that should be support for taking power away from judges. It is the perfect example of how people cannot escape their own personal biases. Judges are people. Some check needs to be in place to limit their power. I will raise this as an issue in another thread and I hope you will participate! I am pleased with Scalia's response to the broad hypothetical of what to do if a correct reading of the constitution produces a moral wrong. It shows that he puts the values of a democratic republic above his own personal views. Especially in this day and age where you would be hard pressed to get anyone to agree that there even exists a moral right or wrong. These days-- "right" and "wrong" are defined by the groups one identifies with. In essence it boils down to politics and it is a check on those politics that needs to be put in place with respect to the Supreme Court.

I disagree that the Court is the place where people go to right social wrongs in a broad way. Yes, the Brown decision was masterfully cobbled together as a unanimous opinion in 1954. But for all the hooplah surrounding that decision-- it did no more that spark the actiions of others that finally did change our society. The civil rights movement was born out of Brown and it was that movement that truly changed our society in the form of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Granted, Brown motivated but it did not accomplish its goal. It was a democratic movement (as it should be) that ultimately changed the fabric of our society.

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Lots of things were in the FF's minds as they drafted the Constitution. It depends, as always, just which FF we're talking about. I think it's self-delusional to believe they all thought alike.

But, how does the Constitution read? Secular or religious? By my reading, it's clearly a secular document with an outline of how the fed government should be run. It's a technical manual, not a scripture. Some mention of religion is in there, but nothing specific to a particular belief system.

I know lots of arguments are built around what the FFs thought at the time of drafting the Constitution. However, that an amendment process was defined, the FFs did agree that the Constitution was destined to change over time. They were pretty smart to see the immense changes that were to come, from the evolution into an industrial society to the acceptance of minorities and women into the political process.

And I think it is a stretch to determine anything else about these people as a whole from just reading the Constitution. Each person needs to be studied in the context of his historical records, and then it's still a stretch to make determinations on thought. Thoughts change rapidly in thinking people.

Along with this, I am very warry when an argument invokes the FFs intentions. This is an appeal to authority, and dead authority at that. Just because an FF thought something doesn't make it valid. Hamilton thought Jefferson was all wet, and vice versa. Who was right?

I'm of the mind, who cares? It isn't relevant to the current situations. Historically curious, but not important when figuring out things today.

I do see this as being important to an interpreter of the Constitution, an SC justice. They too have their own ways of looking at things, obviously. Some might think the FFs were without fault, and you have to wonder what the motive is, as this is simply an illogical conclusion about human beings. Others might think they were all nuts, equally as illogical and equally worthy of question.

For me, I take the Constitution as a secular technical government manual. It isn't my job to interpret what it's supposed to mean, only to vote. The pay is a lot less than that for an SC justice.

Good points AM.

There is equal folly in trying to conjecture what the founding fathers would think today. The interstate commerce gives the federal government more power than any other. Yet so much has changed since the framers died--trains, planes and interstate telecommunications--just to name a few.

Here are the dates of some of the framers’ deaths:

Franklin 1790
Washington 1799
Hamilton 1804
Jefferson and Adams 1826 (Both on July 4)
Madison 1836

To awake them now would be like multiplying Rip Van Winkle’s forty year slumber by a factor of 4 to 5. They would be unable to place next to nothing in modern context.

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?

Post #33 establishes two things, that America was founded on Common Law and provides a link: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html that clearly states Jefferson only use of the term wall of separation was to state he preferred no particular denomination of Christianity over another, or denomination NEUTRAL. Jefferson affirms the federal government would not adopt Catholic, Baptist or any other sect over another DENOMINATION. This reassurance was necessary because America was very religious country and several denominations had competing points of view. This information supports a notion of neutrality verses secular or Christian.

This is the link to review the entire post that discusses the Religion denomination neutral position that I have concluded has not been refuted with factual information.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=135745 The discussion continued on link #35 at this link http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=135799

On post #1 this link is cited as reference Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org/ and at a sub link on that site http://www.constitution.org/jury/pj/nelson.txt much more information is cited by legal and constitutional scholars, this document is quite lengthily so the key information I would like you to view which supports my conclusion of government founded on common law, neutral to a particular Christian religious denomination verses Secular or Judeo-Christian founding may be viewed at Notes at bottom of the link, which supports credibility of source and further explained in numbering sequence within the text for more clearly understanding America at the time period. Note and text found on link of interest are 33, 62, 63, 64 79(religious) and 83.

Body edited for ease of research.

The Founding Fathers meant for the government to be relgiously neutral, I guess you can call that secular [because...um...that's pretty much the definition of secular ]. No Founding Father that I know of spoke fondly of a Judeo-Christian government. With that said, Common Law, as OverlandSailor put it, has routes in Judeo-Christian philsophy [which is inherently the same as Judeo-Christian religion]. So indirectly, the entire Western World has a Judeo-Christian connection...But the US government was not intended to be religious, I think our country's creators made that pretty clear.

CP

Whoa, Sarge!

Death penalty, Sarge? Judeo-Christian sources?

As to the question at hand, I think our founding fathers were a little more well-read than just those diciplines espousing Judeo-Christian ideals. They were probably smart enough to foresee, in a less than concrete way, the possibility of fanaticism and made the choice to avoid flavoring the contstitition in a Judeo-Christian way or, for that matter, any other bent. After all, they were practically eye-witnesses to the Salem Witch Trials, and other cultish activities.

They also had the benefit of access to countless other writings and philosophies. This is only one of the “laws” that comes straight out of the “Code of Hammurabi” (number 8 in the Code of Laws)

There are hints of even an earlier set of laws which pre-dated and influenced the Hammurabic Code. Those laws were often referred to as “Sumerian”, a rendition of family laws that sprang from even earlier “contracts”.

Looks like even back then, the more money you had, the less likely you were to be on “death row”. Now what Judeo-Christian theocracy did Hammurabi espouse? None. Judeo-Christian laws were influenced by, among others, Hammurabi. The Eastern Religions have many similarities in societal values.

8.
If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirty-fold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.

How many times will I hear that Rome fell because of moral decay? Now I hear that misconception described as synonymous with listing toward liberal thought? In school, I used to have to sit there until the bell rang and had to remain reasonably quiet. At least here, there are ways to vent your frustrations with shallow perceptions of history.

The U.S. WILL FALL when we over-extend ourselves financially, as our President seems all too willing to do. That is why we will fall unless something changes. We need only to look backward a short span in time see that those who predicted, correctly, the ECONOMIC demise of the Soviet Union would occur as a result of their ambitions to spread communism to the rest of the globe.

Now, we are spreading democracy and a healthy dose of Christian scripture to the world. THAT terrifying thought is why I truly believe in the separation of Church and State. If Christianity is to be spread, let Christians do it, not our President and the military. The militant wings of the Muslim religion are – check this out and tell me how we are so different – using religious leaders, scripture and military weapons to force their ideology upon the people!

We could be doing so much more to enhance the lives and plights of our own citizens but we have this supposed ‘mandate’ for spreading Democracy all over the world being shoved to the fore by a President who seems to understand little more than clever political maneuvering.

The last headline we may read before Armageddon may be one similar to the one when Andrea Yates told us “God told her to drown her kids”. I truly believe, he is that much of a loose cannon. His first four years were all about letting corrupt corporations build wealth. Now he is out to “Save the World”. What we really do need is Divine Intervention.

What caused the Roman Empire to fall? I base my position on the fall of the Roman Empire on the writings of Edward Gibbon, which was first published in 1776. If you have a counter to his writings please advice because I welcome other points of view that can be validated. According to my encyclopedia his work sold well and was recognized as a scholar. Regardless the Rome Law system failed and the FF recognized that fact.

Again my encyclopedia clearly states America was founded on Common Law. Common law originates and emanates from almost all cultures that supported it and the Roman Empire even incorporated it into their law before their demise. If you research the common law adopted by America it was the same law that caused the burning of the witches at Salem, MA. In addressing capitol punishment I can only conclude the Old Testament of the Bible citing “an eye for an eye”. I don’t know why capitol punishment is death. Read the numbered legal links on the post http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=139048

I agree the founders were well read and were influenced by the age of enlightenment but no one can deny the country was just overflowing with Christians. Read all the references on the numbered links of the above link. Secular were a very small minority, extremely small group of intellectuals. All states considered themselves as countries, all had constitutions and all were of 99% Christian origin. I agree some of the FF were secular, old secular where they still believed in God, verses secular Atheist. There were even a couple of atheist seculars in the group of FF’s and I’ll give you that. According to the link I cited Christianity was the basis of norm along with common law that allowed people to travel from one state to another to an expected norm prior to and after the Constitution. I can’t bring myself to leap to a judgment that all of these religious states filled with religious officials would accept a secular government. I can understand they would accept a government not influenced by a particular denomination of Christianity but not secular, for what reason?

I merely come to logical conclusions, common law was adopted that is made by the population (Christians) and judged by, at the time property owners or responsible citizens who were Christians. Common law was even as common a subject in public school until the late 1940’s, the same law that a judge from Harvard law school used to try the witches.



I understand the President’s logic, the American people have turned into grasshoppers in comparison to the ants they used to be. Americans used to save money to buy “stuff” and now they just charge it and pay later. My family earns less than $35,000 taxable annual income, we own our own house, well in five more years, have two full health and drug coverage plans plus my wife has AFLAC for injury coverage, IRA and stock holdings, we are ants and our two kids attend private school. We have no debt! I don’t want the money from the top two percent; I want dignity and the ability for my children to get an education in order if they are so creative to become the top two percent.

The primary reason for SS personal accounts is a counterweight to credit card debt the public holds. The personal health savings accounts are for the same reason. The grasshoppers are becoming professional Chapter 11 folks and praying that the Robin Hood Party gets in power and steals from the rich so they can keep being grasshoppers. Bush wants to get people to be homeowners so they have to keep credit strait verses waiting for the socialist dime to come on time.

The citizens need to work on their own plights and stop relying on the government! If they want cheap Canadian pills then live there.

The only spreading of democracy spreading is going to be funded where it helps us wean ourselves of being grasshoppers

our nation’s laws and government were founded on Judeo-Christian “Values.”



I believe that our nation was founded upon these values. It is notable how the founding fathers followed these virtues. However, I also believe that the Constitution was written in such a way that religious ideals and values would not overtake life completely. The very first colonists were in America (or the land that they named America back then) because they were escaping religious persecution in England. Although these colonists did not write The Constitution, they did serve as ample warning to the founding fathers as to what the threat of an overpowering church could be. The Constitution also states that it is possible for an American to practice whichever religion he/she desires; this is just more proof that they did not wish for these Judeo-Christian values to overwhelm American lifestyles.

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

No. The founding fathers were deists. (Deists believe that god created the universe, and then left it to its own devices. A.K.A he doesnt interfere)

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deist#18th_century_popularity

The creation of freedom of religion also contradicts your above theory.

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”
What was on their mind was creating a just government. Since they didn't mention God, the ten commandments or the bible, they probably wanted a secular government.

If our government is really founded on Judeo-Christian values why weren't all the other Christian countries like Russia, Spain, Austria, Prussia and Sweden democratic like us? How can our democracy be based on "Judeo-Christian Values" while on the other side of the Atlantic, absolute monarchs used those same "values" to support their autocratic rule? Why couldn't the Founding Fathers have just created the Constitution based on what made sense and seemed logical? Isn't that what we do now? Why would the Founding Fathers have thought any differently?


Actually the very first English colonists went to Virginia in 1606 to make money for a joint-stock company. The Pilgrims didn't go to America until 1620.

I believe that the constitution was based almost entirely on judeo-christian values. I mean lets take a step back in time and look at what their views on life were: Every sunday, church then a congregational gathering then home to spend time with your family, the founding fathers were raised in an enviroment where you lived by the bible and the law of the land. It wasn't like today where your parents raise you and don't let anyone elses opinion get through, no, they were raised strictly by their father and mother, their pastor/priest, the neighbors they lived by and their teachers. The time they lived in was a time of family and christian based values. I just think that based on the human psyche that is the only possible answer to the basis of the constitution.

This has been refuted by many authorities. Here's one that is interesting, because it comes from a school of theology which is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a hotbed of humanism or liberal Christianity:

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State



Keep in mind that this statement was written by a conservative Christian theologian.

Some examples:



(I have edited out the author's careful documentation of these statements. You can find everything in the main article cited above.)

Certainly, the Founding Fathers lived in a part of the world which was culturally Christian to a large extent, but I don't think we can say that this had such a heavy influence on the Constitution as some seem to think. It's certainly not an anti-Christian document, but it's not a pro-Christian document either.

The question begs one more basic: what are Judeo-Christian values? how do they differ from Hindu values, or Muslim values, or Buddhist values?

What about Pagan values? Weren't the Founders most inspired by the Pagans, the Greeks who gave us Democracy and the Romans who gave us the Republic?

I say we might as well talk about the Constitution being based on Pagan values.

Among the right wing political and religious elements of the United States there is a concerted effort to rewrite history to support their belief that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though the U.S. Constitution contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ.

While some of the early Colonies did establish governments based on various religions, those same religious based colonies practiced religious intolerance and persecution. The same things they came to America to escape. When it became necessary to band together to separate from England the leaders and great thinkers of the time stepped forward to help outline a form of government divorced from the bigotry of religious favoritism.

Luckily a large group of free thinkers who where Deists (Free Masons) and not Christians won the day and religion was kept from dominating the government of the United States.

In the early days of the United States the Pope was vocal about his opposition to the non-Christian Deists in the United States and clear on his insistence that the Church should control the government. This is the same Church that today harbors pedophiles and moves them from one community another with out warning the community, giving these sick people a new pool of children to pray on. The rest of the Christian community says nothing about it and George Bush the great Christian and war hero says nothing about it.

All George Bush has to say are frightening things like, "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job", and supports the inclusion of religious doctrines in the teaching of science in public schools. My greatest fear is that, as a representative of the extremist right wing of Christianity, Bush feels that the second coming of Christ will take place once the war of Armageddon takes place in the middle east. I don't what to be part of his perverted religious philosophy. Get Religion Out Of Government.

For all who have posted after my entry #64 at link http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=139048 I would suggest each provide some basis that supports your conclusion that simply doesn’t contain a rebuttal of the conclusion of a “neutral” to religion theme I came to. One cannot argue America was and is a Christian nation and one cannot rule out that “some” of the FF’s were deists but a logical mind would not allow one to believe the masses would agree to a totally secular government.

You make it sound as if the right wing has a corner on religion and I’m here to tell you Hillary is going to straiten you out come next election cycle.

Secular as it is defined in modern days, almost anti-Christian, is a very new concept. If you don’t believe me go rent the movie Great Balls of Fire that clearly shows religion almost stopped the birth of Rock and Roll. You had to be there to understand and I was so there!


When anyone starts a sentence with the words “My greatest fear” I burst out laughing because there are a lot of things worse than perverted religious philosophies. For example you could go to DC to protest religion and take the wrong K street exit and a group of Fifty Cent guys could think of a lot of perverted right of passage for directions much worse than any religion.

Religion is neutral in government as it should be. The government doesn’t represent any religion nor profess religion as its base. The government encourages society to have morals based on the existing laws. Not all laws come from a religious origin but in America it is crystal clear many of our laws do originate in the Christian nations religious moral values of elected officials. Secular government? Gay issues, don't ask don't tell, marriage and society acceptance to name a few indicate the religious majority make laws on religion moral values. The government doesn't select a religion to back or deny.

Yes good point, the phrase my greatest fear is a little weak. Sorry for that. Although I would be considerably more concerned about driving down a street in Iraq. Bush is the "War President" and that is certainly what he is doing, and in the name of his religious beliefs is undertaking a "Christian" cleansing for "democracy". I am not a Christian and in fact am a member of no religious organization. I do hold my own beliefs in that regard and feel secure enough in my own beliefs that I don't feel I need to try to convince others to follow my beliefs. When it comes to government, i do try to influence people and one of these beliefs is that religious dogma has no place in government.

The Bill of Rights

When the Bill of Rights went into force in 1791 these words were included in the first Amendment:



The First Amendment both protected the individual’s right to pursue beliefs, whether Judeo-Christian or otherwise, and barred the Congress from establishing a religion.

Amendment 14

In1866 the Fourteenth Amendment applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States:



Your reference to the First Amendment is right on. Congress can not establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of a religion.

In my mind, however, the Fourteenth Amendment is weak because of the manner by which it was passed. You may recall, the southern states were still outside of the body politic undergoing reconstruction. Their readmission and the end of military rule was only allowed by ratifying the 13th and 14th Amendments. Thus, real debate on the merits of the 14th Amendment never took place.

That being said, I do agree that Congress (or the Federal Government) may neither establish or disestablish a religion.

This is where everything started and this is where it needs to end. Congress cannot establish an official national religion, neither can it prohibit the establishment of any religion in the U.S. This is not about what congress can and can't do. It is about what was the intention of the founding fathers at the time that this was written. As I have stated previously on this thread, children and adults were raised differently back then and it was a very "church going" time. You went to church and you paid attention, you learned the Bible and you were taught to respect God's wishes. That is how the Founders raised their children and that is how they were raised making the Constitution 99.9% likely to be based on christian values.



I am not saying that it is pro-christian but I am telling you that it was based on christian values. The Bill of rights is structured around the Ten commandments. It is not whether or not the constitution is pro-christian but if it is based on christian values and the answer is certainly.

I'm sorry, I cannot agree with this at all. In fact, it would be hard for me to find two human documents which are so utterly unrelated.

The Bill of Rights

The Ten Commandments

Let's actually read these.

Is there anything in the Ten Commandments about freedom of religion? (In fact, the Ten Commandments is clearly against freedom of religion. Remember the "Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me" business.) Anything about freedom of assembly or the press, or the right to bear arms? Quartering? Searches and seizures? Trial by jury? Speedy trial? Excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments? Etc.

On the other hand, is there anything in the Bill of Rights about God, or the Sabbath, or honoring your parents, or killing, or adultery, or stealing, or bearing false witness, or coveting? Etc.

These two things are, in fact, nearly opposite. The Bill of Rights grants people freedom; the Ten Commandments places restrictions on the behavior of individuals.

Yes exactly, sometimes the most obvious things are missed by people. Why is such blindness a normal condition?

The institution of "Common Law" has been referred to a number of times in this thread, but it seems there are some misperceptions with regard to its origins. Common Law is also referred to as "Anglo-Saxon Law"--indeed, in the non-English-speaking world, that is what it's usually called--and with good reason. While Common Law may have absorbed some Judeo-Christian influences along the way, its origins are to be found in pre-Christian Germanic tribal custom. There's nothing Judeo-Christian about trial by a jury of one's peers, for instance; it's what Germanic tribes did well before Christianity was even created, let alone spread to northern Europe.

In fact, the very notion that the monarchical power should be subject to certain limitations, and which culminated in the rejection of monarchy altogether in the creation of the United States, is very much a concept the roots of which can be found in pre-Christian Germanic practice.(Source: David Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations)

It was similar non-Christian custom which led the English barons to challenge the autocracy of King John and force him to sign the Magna Carta. After all, how could such thinking be traced back to a Biblical tradition, when one Biblical story after another describes kings whose worldly power went unquestioned, and when the honorific reserved for Jesus himself is "the King of Kings"? When the seminal figure in your religion (that same Jesus), exhorts you to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," how can the rejection of a Caesar (in this case George III) and his replacement with an elected official (the President of the United States) subject to checks and balances possibly be in any way in line with Judeo-Christian principles, tradition or whatnot?

I understand how you conclude much of the common law was based on other than Christian faith but I don't understand how you conclude America was founded on secular civil law thinking?

Please read the references I made on my last post, especially the legal links which refer to religious tendencies throughout the original colonies. The US constitution was written in English and German because near Philly mostly Germans lived and elsewhere mostly English speaking citizens lived. They all had in common religion and not secular thoughts. Many Americans fled the old country because of the religious persecution and if you search out old family bibles you will find artwork with angles with full wingspan verses the clipped wings and religious persecution going on in Europe at the time.

So, please explain how you conclude the way you state on a secular basis of law? What facts back you up? There wasn't even an outspoken secular group prior to the creation of rock and roll music? Well, I'll admit there were some in the north that helped start the Civil War but not an outspoken minority that was recognized?

If the Founders had wanted the Constitution to be based on Judeo-Christian teachings, why did they - as religious as many of them were - explicitly prohibit the government from endorsing a religion? Why is it that Jesus and the Ten Commandments and any other uniquely Judeo-Christian concepts are referred to exactly ZERO times in the Constitution?

Could it be that in spite of their own various religious leanings, the Founders wanted to be very clear about the government being nonreligious? Ya think?

Of course, the founders saw the problems associated with a theoracy and viewed the problems associated with a dominate religion belief among the major Christian groups taking over and imposing beliefs opposite of other denominations. If you look at the post references I made earlier you will see America was and is a Christian nation and simply didn't want to end up like Northern Ireland fighting with power struggles inside the government. That doesn't preclude admiring the morality religion brings to a stable society and therefore adapted the common law which, in the time period has just decided it was a bad idea to burn witches. They didn't choose Civil Law as the seculars prefer do desire through court appointed law these days.

I gave reference in the earlier post that clearly stated and supported the government was neutral verses secular. Neutral may support the Christian values without supporting a particular denomination over another. Perhaps the founders saw the possibilities of something like the problems in Northern Ireland based on religion dominance affecting the rights of a minority. Neverless a secular approach was avoided and common law was addopted reflecting the values of Christianity within the laws created to govern the nation. The founders simply required a basic bill of rights and that each state support a similar bill of rights in their constitution to assure a state or group of states, say all Baptist or Catholic didn't overpower others in a minority rights.

Had the government been secular then secular Roman Civil law would have been established in leiu of allowing Christains to make laws that reflect their moral values.
Edited to add clarification in color.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians?
The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine
truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same
Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after
creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress
voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the
people of this nation.
Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution,
is still remembered for his words, "Give me liberty or give
me death"; but in current textbooks, the context of these words is
omitted.
Here is what he actually said: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that
presides over the destinies of nations. The battle, sir, is not to the
strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of death? I know not what others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.
Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths
have been afforded freedom of worship here." Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front
of his well-worn Bible: "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole
country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator." He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and
most important role.

On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of
the American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond
the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution:
"The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible
for use in all schools."
Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly
Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered
in 1636.
In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that
students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that
they could study the Scriptures: "Let every student be plainly instructed
and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his
life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John
17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our
children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."
James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the
United States, said this: "We have staked the whole future of all
our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to
govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Why does "secular" have to mean Roman Civil law? It can also mean Anglo-Saxon-inspired common law. Or it can mean a nation's founding legal document that makes no mention of any religion except to explicitly state that the government will not establish religion.

That's pretty dang secular.

Or are you simply saying that because the Constitution allows Jews & Christains to pass some (but not all) laws influenced by their religion, therefore it's based on Judeo-Christianity? Because that's a pretty broad definition of "based on Judeo-Christianity".

I could use the same logic to argue that the Constitution is based atheistic utilitarian values. But I won't, because it's bad logic.

Perfectly true, and I won't deny that an overwhelming majority of the population of the nascent United States was religious, and that the majority of those people were aherents of some denomination of Christianity. But as the sectarian strife which led to many Europeans emigrating to the New World shows, Christianity is not, in and itself, a unifying factor. The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) is one of the most brutal wars in recorded history, laying waste to large tracts of central Europe and killing a larger percentage of the German population than the second world war(!) despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that all parties involved were Christian.

It's an important thing to note that the religious persecution which immigrants to the United States were trying to escape was almost universally at the hands of other Christians. And quite a few denominations might be the persecuted in one "old country" (say, Catholics in England) while simultaneously being the persecutors in another (say, Catholics in France). The concept of "Christendom" as a monolith has always pretty much been a fiction, since the various denominations have some seriously irreconcilable points of doctrine. The (Catholic) Fourth Crusade never engaged a single muslim, but ended up sacking (Orthodox) Constantinople. In the 17th century, the Protestant Dutch were perfectly happy to team up with the muslim Omanis to pursue the common goal of driving the Catholic Portuguese out of the Indian Ocean.

As a result, when the Constitution was being drafted, the Founding Fathers, whatever their personal beliefs, saw the potential peril in acknowledging the state-sanctioned supremacy of any religion, and Christianity in particular. For if Christianity were granted primacy in the new United States, it would not take long before the arguments would erupt over which denomination should have primacy, and that would inevitably lead to the New World becoming the latest theater of sectarian warfare--the very thing so many immigrants had sought to escape. The Founding Fathers, then, recognized that one thing which would be vital to maintaining the integrity of their new country would be to guarantee to its citizens freedom of religion (which also entailed freedom from the different religions of one's fellow citizens). The state would have to be scrupulously neutral with regard to religion, and to that end, the state would have to stay out of religion entirely. Which is why the only mention of religion in the Constitution is in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states in so many words that the federal government (and by extension, due to Article VI, the states as well) shall not support or hinder any particular religion.

For the sake of this discussion, and at the risk of seeming way ignorant, would someone please give me a clue as to what are Judeo-Christian Values. I don't get it, much as I hear the term used.

The term seems to imply that Jews and Christians have different values than, say, Hindus or Muslims. Are Hindus any less likely to place high value on their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness than Jews?

Is it really a matter of values, or are we talking about religious beliefs here? I can see that Jews and Christians have some religious beliefs in common (i.e., the Great Monogod), but others (i.e., Muslims) share those beliefs as well. So why not call it Judeo-Christian-Muslim Values?

I just don't get it. Would someone please explain what are Judeo-Christian Values? Thanks a bunch.

Euromutt I think we are in agreement on where the federal government is with religion inasmuch it is neutral towards any particular denomination of religion. All of what you said is quite justification for the neutrality and would explain the Jefferson conversation with the Baptist (link on post #64 this topic), which says clearly that he would assure the Baptist no other denomination would be given preference and the state would not enter the religion establishment. The definition of secular at the time of the founding of the constitution and in present day is different and therefore I choose neutral to describe the FF’s relationship between the government and religion. In modern day progressive secularism view religion is reviled and I fail to see that in the constitution or the states even supporting such a government. The time-honored traditions of opening prayer in congress would support my neutrality assumptions as one example.

Now I fail to see prayer in school as establishing "a" religion and I do not think the neutrality went that far...



Robert B I think I could save some typing by simply asking you to review the links on post #64 of this thread on page 4 to resolve much of your questions if you haven't already.

For common law it had been established in the confederation prior to the constitution common law prevailed because of the agriculture environment. This common law was based on the morals of the common man of the time and is the same law that allowed the burning of the witches at Salem, in fact the judge of the witch’s case was a Harvard Law graduate. Common law is a living law and was recently used in the judgment on the woman in FL decision basing the husband has the right to choose spousal life decisions once a father “gives away” his daughter to the “new family name.” Common law regardless of origin was based on “community morals” and little more, usually necessity like a husband being told by a doctor you have the choice of a healthy son to help on the farm and a paralyzed or dead wife or a dead son and live wife if the baby is taken. So one would consider it isn’t the woman’s right to choose, rather the husband’s right and it is if he demands his rights under common law in cases of abortion.

I made a friendship with a Buddhist monk from Finland that is a common law scholar and he told me common law was taught in public schools until the late 1940’s and my father confirmed that he had indeed learned common law in school so he could be a citizen capable of obeying and judging the law if chosen as juror.

During the FDR presidency he tried to establish the Catholic religion in our government through changes of capitalism based on 15th century doctrine used in Spain’s capitalistic system that involves a socialistic approach and that is about as close as American government has came to adopting a religion denomination’s rule to govern by. Of course his new deal was unconstitutional and defeated by conservatives and now today the conservative movement continues to try to keep the Democratic Party from establishing the New Deal socialist Catholic doctrine

Wow, thousands of history and law professors have been wrong all these years, huh? I would like very much to see a citation on this. Mostly because it isn't really true. Common law wasn't based on "community morals" but rather on hte legal tradition that had developed in Great Britain. Here's something I posted in another thread, which was taken heavily from a lecture by Professor Jim Driscoll.


THAT is the origin of the common law, not "community morals." Simple fact that has been reproduced and confirmed by anyone and everyone who has ever studied the "origins of the Common Law."

Hey this is amazing we have something in common, we both reverse the letters in the word “the” only I try to go back and fix mine.

Yes a man is king of his castle and the king can't cross the mote into the man's castle. Well the king kept crossing the moat so America adopted the know laws to work that everyone was familiar with and incorporated a Bill of Rights that came from the Creator and not the King. Since these rights came from the Creator they were property of the citizen and not the King or government. You may find reference to how common law was incorporated into American justice system in Encarta encyclopedia 99 by selecting "key word common law" and then reading sub-link "Bill of Rights". So, since the bill of rights gave the authority to the citizen under the authority of the Creator as rights the government was blocked from entering the mans castle no matter how low on the food chain he may find himself as long as he lives inside of the established "communities laws".

Common law originated during ancient Roman rule when property disputes became problems and the courts started to incorporate arbitration and established precedence to resolve disputes to ease trade and avoid conflicts among trading partners. You are correct the King was the arbitrator through his delegate but if you read the link on Post #1 on common law you will clearly see America was and is the only country to have applied common law established by the state but judged by a jury of peers. In other words the community use their morals to establish laws, the laws are written, a citizen violates or is suspected to have violated the law and a judge reviews the law with the decision in the hands of a jury of peers. The community may be considered a city or town, a county, a state or the entire United States since the community sends elected officials as their agent to represent the community's moral will. In Roman Civil Law the judge is always final rule however in America the jury is final rule in judgment of an offender and the judge simply defines the law to the jury in order they may come to a conclusion based on the law "their representatives" created for the community. A good example of community law is smack you in the face clear in NC, on one side of Fort Bragg a county allows topless bars and open free sale of alcohol, on the other side of Fort Bragg the community does not allow the sale of alcohol nor bars period, in fact if you are visible to the public, (the community who wrote the law) drinking a beer on your own property you may be fined, arrested and imprisoned. Such laws may exist because they do not violate the basic rights at the highest authority the US Bill of Rights.

Well, you gave me a challenge so I feel obligated to do likewise, I say I saw a lawyer on nationwide TV clearly state common law was the factor in the fate of the FL woman allowing her husband to treat her as his property over the paternal wishes of her family. Please prove common law did not decide the case, as she became the husband’s property or “will” as the parents lost their property or “will” when the father gave her away at marriage to the husband.





I guess you have the origin correct but once adopted by a government that gave the King's authority to the people through the Bill of Rights the king's rights became the community's rights. Even in pre-US Bill of rights the morals and norms of the community were incorporated into the King's common law and had they not we may have been cutting off hands for larceny or not have been allowed to burn all of those witches in Salem.

Well, Ol Sarge, I'd be fascinated to hear in what way the definition of "secularism" was supposedly different in 1776 from what it is now. I might add that, to my mind, there is no revilement of religion specifically inherent in secularism today. The revilement is at attempts past and present by certain adherents of certain religions to introduce governmental measures which favour any or all religions in blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.

The First Amendment as a whole guarantees what is these days summed up as "freedom of conscience." Freedom of religion is an important part of that, but freedom of religion is impossible without the guarantee of freedom from other people's religion. It is a fundamental tenet of just about every religion (and every denomination that may exist within a religion) that it is the One True Faith. While the works of Jack T. Chick, such as this one on Catholicism, this one on Judaism and this one on Islam may seem extreme examples, they are, historically speaking, quite mild. After all, history is replete with examples of adherents of one faith not only believing all others (i.e. infidels) would end up in Hell, but being more than happy to expedite their passage. Often in creatively painful ways. I cannot emphasize enough that the religious persecution from which many Christian immigrants to the New World were fleeing was almost universally inflicted on them by other varieties of Christian.

To paraphrase my earlier post, if freedom from religion is to be guaranteed equally to all citizens, church and state must be rigorously kept divided; no exceptions. Once you open the door to some religious doctrine in governmental policy, no matter how ecumenical at first, the risk