Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

William Barr: Religion is Under Attack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
    It was perfectly legal until the Bill of Rights was ratified. And even then, it was legal by the states until Amendment XIV was ratified. Now no government agency can endorse or deny religion. The rest of it is fine, of course.

    As Madison wrote, the fruits of established religion have been:
    "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
    James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

    Madison was entirely correct.
    Here's some more of Madison's entire correctness:


    WHEREAS the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request, that a day may be recommended, to be observed by the People of the United States, with religious solemnity, as a day of public Humiliation, and Prayer; and whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed, to offer, at one and the same time, their common vows and adorations to Almighty God, on the solemn occasion produced by the war, in which he has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign power to involve these United States;

    I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next, as a convenient day to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of mankind, the public homage due to his holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasures; of seeking His merciful forgiveness, His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment; and especially of offering fervent supplications, that in the present season of calamity and war, He would take the American People under his peculiar care and protection; that he would guide their public councils, animate their patriotism, and bestow His blessing on their arms; that He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord, and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion, to do to others as they would require others to do to them; and finally, that, turning the hearts of our enemies from the violence and injustice which sway their councils against us, He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of Peace.

    Given at Washington the 9th day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twelve.

    James Madison.



    Before you reply, just imagine Donald Trump's name signed at the bottom. How would you respond?

    Comment


    • #92
      dishonestly?

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
        The government isn't dragging women into the clinics though, are they Jerry?
        As I have shown, there are some minors who are having an abortions without the consent of their parents. Many of the minors are too immature to know what is good for them and what isn't. And the parents are the people who should make the decision about whether or not an abortion is the right thing for their minor child.

        But the state of Maryland has decided that they know more about what is good for the child than do the parents. In other words, they have robbed the parents of rights which rightfully belong to the parents.

        Can you not understand that?

        Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
        Republicans.
        That was then but it NOW the Republicans are the party which is against abortions. Or you under the impression that it is the Democrats who are against abortions?

        Why would you support the part which wants tax-payer funding for the murder of the unborn?

        What is it about the Dems which is so good that you can overlook their stand on abortions?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
          As I have shown, there are some minors who are having an abortions without the consent of their parents. Many of the minors are too immature to know what is good for them and what isn't. And the parents are the people who should make the decision about whether or not an abortion is the right thing for their minor child.

          But the state of Maryland has decided that they know more about what is good for the child than do the parents. In other words, they have robbed the parents of rights which rightfully belong to the parents.

          Can you not understand that?
          This is surprising. "Whether or not?" You'll notice your words I bolded. The Maryland law would only be an issue for parents who would never allow their minor daughter to get an abortion under any circumstances, no matter the situation, and intend in some way to stay in full physical control of their daughter until she gives birth to ensure that she carries that baby to term. The minute you say "whether or not," you take the teeth right out of your argument.

          Again, just as a liquor store can stand open on the corner for 24 hours a day, no one is forcing anyone to walk in and buy alcohol. That abortion is legal doesn't mean a woman or a girl is required to make use of it. You're railing against the government for assuring a citizen (your daughter) that her legal rights are available to her should she choose to use them.

          That was then but it NOW the Republicans are the party which is against abortions.
          Jerry, without the Roe v. Wade decision handed down by Republican-appointed judges on the Supreme Court, the current law in Maryland wouldn't exist.

          "That was then" is why we're here now. Don't look around for Democrats to blame for that one.

          Or you under the impression that it is the Democrats who are against abortions?

          Why would you support the part which wants tax-payer funding for the murder of the unborn?

          What is it about the Dems which is so good that you can overlook their stand on abortions?
          No, I'm not under that impression.

          Do you want taxpayer funding for the endless military-industrial complex responsible for useless wars and countless deaths? Or do we both understand that our tax money has always been used for things not all the citizens believe are just?

          As for expecting Republicans to do more than pay lip service to the right to life, this is from last year, from a conservative source:
          [Rand] Paul introduced an amendment to an appropriations package Thursday that would defund Planned Parenthood specifically, but keep federal funding for women’s health service organizations that do not perform abortions. “There are over 10,000 community health center facilities across the country, providing health services to more than 27 million patients – compared with 2.4 million who use Planned Parenthood services,” claimed the press release from the senator’s office.

          But Paul’s amendment was thwarted. “My amendment would end funding to Planned Parenthood,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “My amendment is already included in the House version, and yet my amendment is now being blocked by Republicans.”
          Why would a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, something Republicans have campaigned on for basically forever, be stopped by a Republican-controlled Senate?


          “The Republican leadership has filled the ‘amendment tree’ to block my defund Planned Parenthood amendment, but how can that be?” Paul asked in his Senate speech. “Surely Republican leadership doesn’t favor abortion funding? The answer is a curious one.”

          Then Paul directly targeted his own party’s hypocrisy:

          "The truth is that Republican leadership favors bloated government spending more than they care about Planned Parenthood. This appropriations bill before us exceeds the spending caps by nearly $100 billion. Big spending Republicans fear that blocking funding for Planned Parenthood would derail their plans to greatly expand the welfare-warfare state."

          The “ welfare-warfare state” indeed.

          What are Republicans’ real priorities?

          Paul’s fiery speech resulted in GOP leadership relenting (which is unusual, because how often do House and Senate floor speeches take place in an empty chamber and to little effect?) and a vote was allowed on the amendment.

          It failed, 48-45. Pro-choice Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, predictably voted against it, but so did the minority of pro-life Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., who is in a tight re-election race.

          But the amendment failing isn’t the real story. That virtually every Republican voted to defund Planned Parenthood isn’t the real issue here either.

          The larger question remains this: Why would a Republican-led Senate squash an amendment to do something virtually every Republican, from President Trump to members of Congress, have vowed to do? Some might complain that this was not the right way to accomplish this objective. But Republicans have controlled the Senate for how long now? When is the right way going to manifest itself?




          Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
            This is surprising. "Whether or not?" You'll notice your words I bolded. The Maryland law would only be an issue for parents who would never allow their minor daughter to get an abortion under any circumstances, no matter the situation, and intend in some way to stay in full physical control of their daughter until she gives birth to ensure that she carries that baby to term. The minute you say "whether or not," you take the teeth right out of your argument.
            Please quote the law where that is said.

            Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
            Or do we both understand that our tax money has always been used for things not all the citizens believe are just?
            Why do you support the party who was mainly responsible for the defeat of the bill to defund Planned Parenthood?

            A huge majority of the Republicans voted for the bill and a huge majority of the Democrats voted against it.

            Why do you support the party that is trying its best to have as many of the unborn murdered as possible?

            Comment


            • #96
              [QUOTE=Derf;5358491]Here's some more of Madison's entire correctness:

              Yes, Madison held the "no preference" doctrine, which held that government could not support any religion, but could endorse faith generally. So while he would not publicly endorse Christianity, he would endorse faith in some kind of creator, without violating his principles. Today, that is not an option. From a site that has been inclined to favor establishment of religion:


              There is nothing in the drafting history of the First Amendment that contradicts Washington's understanding of the appropriate relation between government and religion. In the First Congress, the committee proposal in the House read, "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." But some evinced concern that the phrase might put in doubt the legitimacy of some of the states' own religious establishments. Six of the original thirteen states had established churches. James Madison believed modifying the phrasing to prohibit a "national religion" would be sufficient to allay that concern and would make clear that the new government was not to impinge on the rights of conscience by establishing a governmental connection to a church. Representative Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire suggested that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience." The House finally settled on this language: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed." The Senate preferred the formula "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion," which likely would have permitted direct financial support to a sect. In the end, the conference between the House and the Senate agreed on the current version: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The addition of the word "respecting" is significant. It prohibits Congress from legislating either to establish a national religion or to disestablish a state religion. As Laurence Tribe has written, "[a] growing body of evidence suggests that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform two functions: to protect state religious establishments from national displacement, and to prevent the national government from aiding some, but not all, religions."
              ...
              Nonetheless, when it came time to speak upon the matter, the Supreme Court preferred to base its conception of the original understanding of the clause on its interpretation of a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut (1802). Although he had been in France during the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson's metaphor of a "wall of separation" was interpreted by the Court as the authoritative statement of a "high and impregnable" barrier between church and state

              https://www.heritage.org/constitutio...nt-of-religion

              Before you reply, just imagine Donald Trump's name signed at the bottom. How would you respond?
              I'd point out that while this was certainly once legal, subsequent Supreme Court rulings have expanded religious rights to the point that the precise wording of the 1st Amendment applies. It does not merely prohibit support or restriction for a particular religion, it specifically prohibits support or restriction for religion generally.

              As Madison said, there are de minimus violations that are not necessarily banned. The courts have cited "In God We Trust" on coinage as an example, pointing out that it no longer has any meaning to most people. This is one of the reasons Madison cited in saying that government support for religion is a bad thing for religion.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                Please quote the law where that is said.
                Did you understand what I said? I'm referring to the law you referenced, and said that the minute you say "whether or not an abortion is the right thing for their minor child" you've taken the teeth out of your argument. Unless you might decide she should have an abortion and she doesn't want one?

                Why do you support the party who was mainly responsible for the defeat of the bill to defund Planned Parenthood?
                Rand Paul blamed the Republicans for initially blocking it so they could pass their bill. Or did you miss that part?

                Why do you support the party that is trying its best to have as many of the unborn murdered as possible?
                Because that's not what it's doing. The abortion rate has fallen to a historical low. Did you know that?

                Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                  Because that's not what it's doing. The abortion rate has fallen to a historical low. Did you know that?
                  Yes, but because their are less pregnancies these days.

                  You seem proud that the murdering of the unborn has declined despite the fact that the murders continue.

                  Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                  Rand Paul blamed the Republicans for initially blocking it so they could pass their bill. Or did you miss that part?
                  The final vote is what mattered and not what happened initially. And you support the party which defeated the bill to defund Planned Parenthood.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                    Yes, but because their are less pregnancies these days.
                    Why do you think that is, Jerry?

                    You seem proud that the murdering of the unborn has declined despite the fact that the murders continue.
                    You seem disappointed that the number of abortions is at a historical low.

                    The final vote is what mattered and not what happened initially. And you support the party which defeated the bill to defund Planned Parenthood.
                    I disagree. When it's expedient, the GOP is pro-life. When it's not - they're not.

                    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post

                      You seem disappointed that the number of abortions is at a historical low.
                      It is an odd phenomena that we need to read with mixed review.

                      The good notes: Teens are more abstinent and those who do get pregnant, are keeping the child more often.

                      Some of this was credited to societal changes: Because marriage is also in decline, it is thought that the stigma of raising a child isn't there, such that the 'shaming' isn't felt as it once was.

                      Some of the not-so-good notes: Kids are less social and thus, while remaining abstinent is the good side, ability to cope with and relate to one another is down, which splits us up more as a nation (one of the problems of random violence).
                      Even with a drop of 500k, the abortion rate is still close to 1 million a year, thus a 'historical' (not sure we can talk 'history' with such a short time-frame of legalization since 1980s), low, could still disappoint. To me, its like looking at the Colosseum: fewer are attending/fewer are being killed, but until it stops, the time for celebrating is a bit premature. Sadly, we are still in the top ten only losing out to nine other countries on the highest abortion rates
                      The highest number of abortions are still done by blacks who are only about 14% of the populace at almost 4 to 1
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                        thus a 'historical' (not sure we can talk 'history' with such a short time-frame of legalization since 1980s), low,
                        Sure we can. The abortion rate is the lowest it's been since 1973.




                        Why? A number of factors. The closures of clinics. Education. Access to contraception. The lower rate and later onset of sexual activity among teens, which is a whole subject unto itself.

                        Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                          You seem disappointed that the number of abortions is at a historical low.
                          Not at all! After all, I am not the one who is defending those who continue to murder the unborn.

                          That is you!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                            Sure we can. The abortion rate is the lowest it's been since 1973.




                            Why? A number of factors. The closures of clinics. Education. Access to contraception. The lower rate and later onset of sexual activity among teens, which is a whole subject unto itself.
                            40 years or so doesn't quite meet 'history' for me. We have hardly been a nation long enough to have a history.
                            My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                            Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                            Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                            Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                            No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                            Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                            ? Yep

                            Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                            ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                            Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lon View Post
                              40 years or so doesn't quite meet 'history' for me. We have hardly been a nation long enough to have a history.
                              About 8 times our nation's history, Jesus' ministry on Earth began. Perspective is everything. And yes, the marked decline in abortion rates is historic. While people have been seeking a government solution, others have been working to change minds. And that's far more effective.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                While people have been seeking a government solution, others have been working to change minds. And that's far more effective.
                                So you are satisfied that there are fewer murders of the unborn these days despite the fact that those murders continue?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X