Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 13:48:36 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Viper, Beautifully expressed. I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you Sir! g You didn't understand a word he wrote...admit it.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 25, 2011 15:45:37 GMT -6
I understand your argument and why you may wish to eschew the use of "from" as opposed to the use of "of," but most only utilize freedom from to postulate that they can believe as they so choose, and not that religion has to be completely underground or that religious beliefs, practices or other forms of worship aren't allowed to be freely exercised in any public venue by believers in our society. "Prohibit the free exercise thereof" implies, in my opinion, that one is free to believe or practice as s/he sees fit. However, the Establishment Clause also protects us from having the state endorse or proscribe religious beliefs antithetical to our own will or desire, thereby implying that one is free to live his or her life outside of the confines of any one particular religious dogma, without political or legal repercussions, if so desired. So yes, as a citizen, you are free from the confines of a state church(e.g., the Anglican Church) or some sort of a state-sponsored religion. Unless the courts start asserting that freedom from implies being free from exposure to religion whatsoever, which I vehemently disagree with, then it's all interpreted in the same context as a form of intended disestablishment. If we really want to go down the road of being entirely so literal, then there is no "right to privacy," "right to a fair trial," or even a "right to freedom of association" explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, essentially everyone agrees that the Bill of Rights gives us a penumbra of synchronous guarantees that are explicitly stated in the amendments themselves, essentially meaning the same thing as those aforesaid phrases when viewed collectively. Your argument for the "freedom from" crowd is a fairly modern one and not indicative of the intent of our Founding Fathers to express thier era's feelings about religion and God. Neither of our positions/observations change the way the issue of teaching evolution in schools is dealt with...mine just asks the reader to remember that our Constitution was not instituted in a "Godless" vacuum. The "haters" try their best to distort our Founder's beliefs in God, but ultimately fail because of the extensive amounts of written material available that is atrributed to our Framers. We can both eschew the the "literal meaning" argument out of hand due to its obvious drawbacks. Viper, Game, Set, Match to you Sir! g
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 15:57:48 GMT -6
Your argument for the "freedom from" crowd is a fairly modern one and not indicative of the intent of our Founding Fathers to express thier era's feelings about religion and God. Neither of our positions/observations change the way the issue of teaching evolution in schools is dealt with...mine just asks the reader to remember that our Constitution was not instituted in a "Godless" vacuum. The "haters" try their best to distort our Founder's beliefs in God, but ultimately fail because of the extensive amounts of written material available that is atrributed to our Framers. We can both eschew the the "literal meaning" argument out of hand due to its obvious drawbacks. Viper, Game, Set, Match to you Sir! g ...that you should post that!
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 25, 2011 16:35:00 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would simply like to direct the forum members back to Viper's excellent reply. #74 , I believe. Viper, again I applaud you! g ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 25, 2011 16:45:28 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm sorry, Viper's post was #71. All forum members interested in this topic should read that post. Please do not be detracted. You are all capable of making your decisions. Thanks again Viper. g ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 25, 2011 16:56:54 GMT -6
Your argument for the "freedom from" crowd is a fairly modern one and not indicative of the intent of our Founding Fathers to express thier era's feelings about religion and God. Neither of our positions/observations change the way the issue of teaching evolution in schools is dealt with...mine just asks the reader to remember that our Constitution was not instituted in a "Godless" vacuum. The "haters" try their best to distort our Founder's beliefs in God, but ultimately fail because of the extensive amounts of written material available that is atrributed to our Framers. We can both eschew the the "literal meaning" argument out of hand due to its obvious drawbacks. I don't think we disagree on the intent of the Framers. However, I would propose that some fervidly use the phrase "freedom OF religion" in the same manner that you abhor, which brings me back to the beginning of this circuitous argument. In fact, I was the original one who asked 4iam to clarify her original prose, because I wanted to make sure she wasn't suggesting what you are seemingly detesting. The use of "freedom of religion" isn't any more revisionist than freedom from religion; it's the interpretation that counts. Neither phrase is used in the COTUS and people owing allegiance to any of the varied interpretations can have a tendency to misuse either choice of verbiage. So the so-called "haters" (i.e., radical, extremist disestablishment cadre) can use whatever choice of words they want, but they'll have to deal with the reality that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, believer and non-believer alike, and believers have a right to exercise their mutually exclusive religious preferences in a manner that is free from the meddling of a state hostile towards any particular religious preferences, yet giving special predilection to none.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 17:37:12 GMT -6
Your argument for the "freedom from" crowd is a fairly modern one and not indicative of the intent of our Founding Fathers to express thier era's feelings about religion and God. Neither of our positions/observations change the way the issue of teaching evolution in schools is dealt with...mine just asks the reader to remember that our Constitution was not instituted in a "Godless" vacuum. The "haters" try their best to distort our Founder's beliefs in God, but ultimately fail because of the extensive amounts of written material available that is atrributed to our Framers. We can both eschew the the "literal meaning" argument out of hand due to its obvious drawbacks. I don't think we disagree on the intent of the Framers. However, I would propose that some fervidly use the phrase "freedom OF religion" in the same manner that you abhor, which brings me back to the beginning of this circuitous argument. In fact, I was the original one who asked 4iam to clarify her original prose, because I wanted to make sure she wasn't suggesting what you are seemingly detesting. The use of "freedom of religion" isn't any more revisionist than freedom from religion; it's the interpretation that counts. Neither phrase is used in the COTUS and people owing allegiance to any of the varied interpretations can have a tendency to misuse either choice of verbiage. So the so-called "haters" (i.e., radical, extremist disestablishment cadre) can use whatever choice of words they want, but they'll have to deal with the reality that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, believer and non-believer alike, and believers have a right to exercise their mutually exclusive religious preferences in a manner that is free from the meddling of a state hostile towards any particular religious preferences, yet giving special predilection to none. My point is simple, unargumentive, and true...I do NOT abhor the phrase "freedom from" but note the difference in tone and meaning it has compared to how our Framers thought of God and religion. I totally agree with your ideas about how our modern populace should react concerning "freedom of" and "freedom from." I was never concerned with that, you were... I just pointed out the social/religious environment and the ideals of our Founders in noting the difference between the two phrases.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 25, 2011 19:09:00 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^ Viper, Game, Set, Match! Thank you again Sir! g ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2011 19:19:27 GMT -6
^^^^^^^^^^^ Viper, Game, Set, Match! Thank you again Sir! g ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Sir? ![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FSTj5Lbvibw/S-bOwVpE_2I/AAAAAAAAAHU/ePoJ112Cteg/s1600/Grovel.jpg) I can't laugh hard enough...no offense, Viper. What's this all about? Are you two Freemasons? Is viper your Worshipful Master, greek? Hmmmm...
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 26, 2011 0:54:44 GMT -6
Butters, please share with us your thoughts on the founding fathers and their belief in god.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2011 3:42:42 GMT -6
Butters, please share with us your thoughts on the founding fathers and their belief in god. Please start another thread first, while also giving your thoughts on the matter. Include references, please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2011 5:58:57 GMT -6
I totally agree with your ideas about how our modern populace should react concerning "freedom of" and "freedom from." I was never concerned with that, you were... I just pointed out the social/religious environment and the ideals of our Founders in noting the difference between the two phrases. To clarify, I used "freedom of" along with "from" only in addressing the question regarding the curriculum of our public schools. The purpose of "from", in regards to the set of required courses in our public schools curriculum, was to highlight the importance that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and state laws may not violate the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land (the Supremacy Clause).
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 26, 2011 6:53:44 GMT -6
To clarify, I used "freedom of" along with "from" only in addressing the question regarding the curriculum of our public schools. The purpose of "from", in regards to the set of required courses in our public schools curriculum, was to highlight the importance that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", and state laws may not violate the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land (the Supremacy Clause). There is often some misunderstanding with the last sentence, so I want to clarify a common misconception here. When the Bill of Rights was adopted those rights were only held to be applicable with the respect to the federal government, and not the various states. So the original intent of the Framers was to leave questions such as religion to the states. The federal government couldn't respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, but states, given more autonomy under a truly federalist system, were permitted to do with respect only to state and/or local institutions (if they so chose), state legal codes, etc. In fact, in the early republic, there were some entanglements between states and religious sects (e.g., Massachusetts for example), and religious instruction in some public schools was not unheard of. Since the Bill of Rights wasn't applicable to the states (or local governments), there was no violation of the Supremacy Clause if public schools opted to have religious indoctrination, as the First Amendment, for example, pertained only to Uncle Sam and not, in fact, to local public schools. However, after the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, the courts eventually took a more progressive view of this amendment, namely the Due Process and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, incorporating the various rights ascribed in Amendments I-VIII to be incorporated against the states. It was only at that time that entities such as public schools, which are agents of local and state governance, were forced to comply with those freedoms enshrined in the federal Bill of Rights. For reference: selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights What is interesting, though, is that the architect of the amendment had intended for it to duly incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states, yet immediately following its passage post-Civil War, the courts were inclined to follow the Framers' original intent, at least at first. For whatever reason, the discussion of this topic is something that is often ignored in constitutional history, namely at the K-12 level, although I recall a collegiate level political science (entry level 100 class) instructor that never really discussed this, either.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Sept 26, 2011 11:10:47 GMT -6
Sir? ![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_FSTj5Lbvibw/S-bOwVpE_2I/AAAAAAAAAHU/ePoJ112Cteg/s1600/Grovel.jpg) I can't laugh hard enough...no offense, Viper. What's this all about? Are you two Freemasons? Is viper your Worshipful Master, greek? Hmmmm... Ahem....... What would make you believe the term Sir would be in any fashion a Masonic term? You aren't one of those tinfoil types where Masons are Satanists, are you?
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 26, 2011 11:46:20 GMT -6
Sir? I can't laugh hard enough...no offense, Viper. What's this all about? Are you two Freemasons? Is viper your Worshipful Master, greek? Hmmmm... sir noun \ˈsər\ Definition of SIR 2 a —used as a usually respectful form of address
|
|