#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
America can't establish religion but Progressives want to establish LGBT laws.
Add New Argument |
3
points
1
point
1
point
Would you be open to a debate regarding the legal and constitutional applications of the First Amendment with a modern and historical context? It seems we fundamentally disagree on it and I think it would be a rather fascinating debate. I would however ask that we behave respectfully to each other, of course. 1
point
Do you grasp the meaning of precident when regarding issues in court whereby past decisions play a big role in determining the intent of current judicial cases? I need not guess the intent of the first Amendment because life decades after the Consitution was written showed in a thousand different ways that displaying Christian symbols on public lands, saying prayers in public schools, celebrating Christmas and Easter holidays in public schools, displaying the Ten Commandments on court room walls, were all a wonderful part of our freedoms of religious expression in America. There is no debate to be had with you. The facts are in from just looking at our nation's history after our Constitution was written. Our religious symbols and holidays are a celebration of our Christian heritage and in no way establishes a religion! I will not waste my time debating settled precident. 0
points
I am happy to debate people who do not deny the simple reality of our Christian heritage and the intent of the Constitution concerning our freedom of religious expression. When the 1st amendment tells us that Government shall not prohibit the freedom of religious expression, it has no disclaimer to say only on private property. We have tons of precedent showing the intent of our Constitution! There is no debating people living in denial! If people on the Left were honest enough to admit that the Constitution is not opposed to nativity scenes or celebrating our Christian holidays and heritage on public grounds, then we could have an actual debate why they think that Government has the right to now go against the Constitution and prohibit our freedom of religious expression on public land. Yes, this bigoted culture is at war with our Christin heritage and if I meet someone who would admit these simple FACTS, then we could have a debate to why they believe they have the right to twist our constitution to fit their new age prohibition against religious expression. 1
point
0
points
Here's the thing: Your claims regarding "settled precedent" contradict current legal paradigms regarding the first amendment, hence why I think this would be an interesting debate. So are you actually open to a respectful debate on this topic, or not, and if not, why are you on a debate website? 0
points
I am happy to debate people who do not deny the simple reality of our Christian heritage and the intent of the Constitution concerning our freedom of religious expression. When the 1st amendment tells us that Government shall not prohibit the freedom of religious expression, it has no disclaimer to say only on private property. We have tons of precedent showing the intent of our Constitution! There is no debating people living in denial! If people on the Left were honest enough to admit that the Constitution is not opposed to nativity scenes or celebrating our Christian holidays and heritage on public grounds, then we could have an actual debate why they think that Government has the right to now go against the Constitution and prohibit our freedom of religious expression on public land. Yes, this bigoted culture is at war with our Christin heritage and if I meet someone who would admit these simple FACTS, then we could have a debate to why they believe they have the right to twist our constitution to fit their new age prohibition against religious expression. 0
points
0
points
1
point
First, you said you were open to debate if people didn't deny our Christian heritage. I didn't deny that much of our early heritage is Christian. Then you say that you are only open to debate people who do not deny the intent of our Constitution when looking at "all the precedent" (not sure what that means, considering the legal context of the word "precedent"). The thing is, there was no unified intent for our Constitution. Our founding fathers were actually quite split on the intent of the Constitution as a document (see the Federalists vs Anti-Federalists for a good example). But even if you want to focus only on the founding father's whose intent you agree with, it is still worth while to debate whether or not that should be relevant. There are massive, open ended legal debates regarding the relevance of original intent, even just within Conservative legal circles. I'd be happy to include that in the debate I am trying to get you to take part in, as I think it is a worth while thing to discuss. So, again, are you open to a respectful debate on this matter, or not? 1
point
Yes, I am open to a respectful debate on why the Left has decided to delibertely lie about the OBVIOUS intent of the Constitution(proven by all our historical precedent). I wll not debate deceptive liars! The intent of the Constitution, when it comes to our freedoms of religious expressions, has been clear for centuries when we look at all our Christian symbols and celebrtions on public land. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. So in order to have an open honest debate, it requires the admittance of the obvious intent of the Constitution. Then after admitting the odvious, we could have a debate on why the Left believe's it has the right to now go against the Constitution and censor our freedoms of religious expression on public land. 1
point
Ok, I really do not understand. With every comment you change the goal posts. I asked you if you want to have a legitimate debate on the historical and legal context of the First Amendment, including intent and precedent. You start talking about the left and declare there is nothing to debate about. I assure you, I am incredibly well versed in the different founding father's intents regarding the Constitution. Enough to know that declaring there to be a singular "obvious" intent is objectively, factually wrong. Now I don't want to talk about your perception of the Left. I want to hold a legitimate, serious, respectful, ONE ON ONE debate regarding our differences of opinion regarding the First Amendment, with an emphasis on it's legal and historical context. Will you or will you not participate in this debate? Please stop avoiding it and just answer the question. 1
point
I answered your question! Let me give you a simple example of what I am trying to tell you. If you were debating someone on the issue of the Earth being flat or round, and the person kept ignoring the centuries of evidence showing how the Earth is obviously round, would you keep debating him even though he refuses to recoginise the overwhelming evidence? Could you have an intelligent honest open debate with him? I say no! I say you woud be wasting your time. That's how I feel when debating people denying the intent of our Constitution concerning religious expression on public land. The precedent of the overwhelming evidence of our Christian heritage and symbols being displayed on pubic lands after the Constitution was written, speaks VOLUMES to the intent of the 1st amendment. I will not waste my time with the "flat earther's" mentality of dening the obvious evidence. I assure you, I am INCREDIBLY well versed in common sense :) 1
point
If you were debating someone on the issue of the Earth being flat or round, and the person kept ignoring the centuries of evidence showing how the Earth is obviously round, would you keep debating him even though he refuses to recoginise the overwhelming evidence? But you haven't presented evidence. You have presented your opinion, then said you won't debate me unless I agree with it, even when I presented evidence that there are other possible stances one can legitimately take. Could you have an intelligent honest open debate with him? I say no! I say you woud be wasting your time. I have had incredibly fun debates regarding whether or not the earth is round, actually. It was all in good faith. That's how I feel when debating people denying the intent of our Constitution concerning religious expression on public land. The precedent of the overwhelming evidence of our Christian heritage and symbols being displayed on pubic lands after the Constitution was written, speaks VOLUMES to the intent of the 1st amendment. Then why not have a debate where you present the evidence that you believe backs up your side, and I can present evidence that I believe backs up mine, and we can actually sit down and discuss the legitimacy of both in a respectful manner. I will not waste my time with the "flat earther's" mentality of dening the obvious evidence. But it really sounds like you are saying you won't debate me unless I agree with all of your opinions (I say that because on three separate occasions you have said you will only debate if I accept a given premise, and each time I agreed at least partially you changed the goal post). So if you are very well versed in common sense and you believe you have a good amount of evidence, why not have a debate about it? This is, after all, a debate website. And so long as it was respectful and in good faith, I believe it would be rather enjoyable. 1
point
I have many times presented evidence such as in the past, many public school teachers were being chosen on the basis of their being Christian so as to be good role models for the children. How on Earth could our courtroom walls have the ten commandments on them if it went against the 1st amendment. Why would Congress open every session with a prayer in our Government buildings if it went against the 1st amendment? They have done this from the beginning after our Consitution was written. I could go on and on, but guess what? IT NEVER MATTERS because I'm debating the flat earthers or in this case, the bigoted censors of our Christian heritage. 1
point
How on Earth could our courtroom walls have the ten commandments on them if it went against the 1st amendment. They don't and aren't allowed to have just a 10 commandments. The Supreme Court has a depiction of Moses, but it is along with Confucius and Solon and references law giving in general from a historical context - not a Judeo-Christian bias. 1
point
Congress open every session with a prayer "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation. The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor. If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. How small a contribution from each member of Congs wd suffice for the purpose? How just wd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality? Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura." Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be less so; and a failure of religious instruction & exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen: and if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion in that devout age. The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one. Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers. The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea." - Madison 1
point
I have many times presented evidence such as in the past, many public school teachers were being chosen on the basis of their being Christian so as to be good role models for the children. What you have done in the past means nothing to me, as you obviously weren't talking to me. This is also fairly irrelevant to what I am talking about. How on Earth could our courtroom walls have the ten commandments on them if it went against the 1st amendment. Do you want to actually discuss that? Why would Congress open every session with a prayer in our Government buildings if it went against the 1st amendment? They have done this from the beginning after our Consitution was written. Do you want to actually have this debate or not? We can could into those questions in detail. I could go on and on, but guess what? IT NEVER MATTERS because I'm debating the flat earthers or in this case, the bigoted censors of our Christian heritage. So do you want to actually debate or not? I don't know why I have to ask this so many times. 1
point
I am debating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you have any intelligent facts to explain why my many examples of religious expression on public lands was ok in the past but not now, then share them with us all. It's called DEBATING! If you have nothing, then keep asking ludicrous questions to deflect the facts. 1
point
I am debating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Neither of us are debating. You started by declaring the conditions in which you would debate, now you are asking rhetorical questions. If you have any intelligent facts to explain why my many examples of religious expression on public lands was ok in the past but not now, then share them with us all. It's called DEBATING! Well if that is where you want to start, then okay. To start off, do you believe that legal paradigms regarding Constitutional amendments should change, or do you believe they must stay the same? This isn't deflection, it's an important question I need to answer to get some context before addressing your two examples. 1
point
I have no problem with a non biased Supreme court of Justices whose main focus is to honestly discern the intent of the Consitution. If there is some new issue in our nation that is not clearly understood through precedent from our history, then I would be open to Justices making a decision that would reflect the intent of the Constitution. Lets say decisions on our freedoms to Internet usage, or decisions on matters of Government taxing the internet, etc. etc. I understand that these types of issues might go to the supreme court, and that the justices would have to compare the internet with other inventions through out history, and discern how the Constitution would treat them. When it comes to freedom of religious expression, the many precedents from our past have clearly shown the intent of the 1st amendment. The problem today is that the Left has become a politcal tool to transform the intent of the Constitution, because their progressive transformation of America is at odds with the constitution's intent. They want a Government establishing a secular America rather than allowing the freedom of religious expression. Liberals are at war with our religuous freedoms and are trying to censor any religious expression on public lands. Sick PC Big Brother in action. They want activist politcal justices to create law becuse they want the Consitution to be a living document changing with the times. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT! As technology and values change over centuries, our great nation is held together by the Constitution so that no new Party or Ideology will ever supercede the intent of the Constitution. The freedoms and liberties of every American is first and foremost no matter how our culture changes over time. 1
point
I have no problem with a non biased Supreme court of Justices whose main focus is to honestly discern the intent of the Consitution. But everyone is biased. That's why we refer to Justices as being left or right leaning. If there is some new issue in our nation that is not clearly understood through precedent from our history, then I would be open to Justices making a decision that would reflect the intent of the Constitution. But again ,there was no singular intent. The intent of the founding fathers differed depending on the founder. So are you going to go with the federalists or the anti federalists? And even then, why do you think their intent is the most important factor? Lets say decisions on our freedoms to Internet usage, or decisions on matters of Government taxing the internet, etc. etc. I understand that these types of issues might go to the supreme court, and that the justices would have to compare the internet with other inventions through out history, and discern how the Constitution would treat them. But no other form of communication is similar to the internet, so the founding father's intent would have no relevance to issues with the internet. When it comes to freedom of religious expression, the many precedents from our past have clearly shown the intent of the 1st amendment. I strongly disagree, as our SCOTUS precedent for religious expression is incredibly diverse. The past hundred years of precedent seem to be what you strongly disagree with. The problem today is that the Left has become a politcal tool to transform the intent of the Constitution, because their progressive transformation of America is at odds with the constitution's intent. Again, what intent? What singular intent are you referring to? They want a Government establishing a secular America rather than allowing the freedom of religious expression. What forms of religious expression have you been denied? Liberals are at war with our religuous freedoms and are trying to censor any religious expression on public lands. Sick PC Big Brother in action. Are you actually up to debate on this, or are you going to insult me again if I dare to disagree? They want activist politcal justices to create law becuse they want the Consitution to be a living document changing with the times. It does change with the times. Both right-wing and left-wing justices have been acting as if it is a living document pretty much since the founding of the SCOTUS. It's impossible to actually function within the judiciary otherwise. The difference is determining in what ways it is "living". As technology and values change over centuries, our great nation is held together by the Constitution so that no new Party or Ideology will ever supercede the intent of the Constitution. Then why does the amendment process exist? The amendment process has subverted the "original intent" of the Constitution on multiple occasions. The freedoms and liberties of every American is first and foremost no matter how our culture changes over time. And what about in instances where the Constitution in its original form doesn't protect freedoms and liberties of some Americans? 1
point
You ask..... "What forms of religious expression have you been denied?" I have given you multiple examples and you pretend to be ignorant and have no clue to what I'm saying. I guess you never want to actually address my many examples of how American has lost it's rights to religious expression such as nativity scenes on public land, or Christmas and Easter holidays in pubic schools, etc. These freedoms of symbols expressing our Christian history and heritage, are not some big government establishing a religion. These are small communities all over our nation made up of a majority of people like me who pay taxes to those public lands and schools, etc. If those tax payers vote to have a nativity scene on their public land, then they should have the freedom to do so. People like you would say no. I will at least give you a compliment to having the common sense intelligence NOT to vote for Hillary. You gained some respect from me for that. 1
point
You ask..... "What forms of religious expression have you been denied?" I have given you multiple examples and you pretend to be ignorant and have no clue to what I'm saying. I guess you never want to actually address my many examples of how American has lost it's rights to religious expression such as nativity scenes on public land, or Christmas and Easter holidays in pubic schools, etc. I was asking which ones you personally have been denied. Do you actually want to discuss the concept of religious depictions on public land or in public schools? Or will you insult me if I have a different opinion than you? These freedoms of symbols expressing our Christian history and heritage, are not some big government establishing a religion. Do you understand what people mean when they say they are establishing a religion? Children in schools are legally considered a captive audience. So when the government uses taxpayer money to put symbols relating to a particular religion around a captive audience of children, people who aren't in that religion tend to view it as the government expressly endorsing said religion, which has been ruled to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. If you disagree with that, can you explain what legal and constitutional justification you have? These are small communities all over our nation made up of a majority of people like me who pay taxes to those public lands and schools, etc. Yes but people of other communities pay taxes too. Why should their tax dollars go towards your religious symbols? If those tax payers vote to have a nativity scene on their public land, then they should have the freedom to do so. People like you would say no. Do you believe that the public should be able to vote on everything, regardless of the Constitutionality of it? I will at least give you a compliment to having the common sense intelligence NOT to vote for Hillary. You gained some respect from me for that. It's not a matter of "common sense". I actually find that phrase incredibly obnoxious. I just find it ethically questionable to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in light of their actions. 1
point
My statement was not obnoxious. It was the reality of what a corrupt criminal Hillary is. If you would vote for her, you are not worth debating! You talk about captive audiences but those nativity scenes captivate NO ONE! Are you so intolerant and closed minded you would be offended by seeing Christian symbols on public land celebrating our heritage? Chidren were allowed to stay home during Christmas ans Easter pageants in schools. No one was forced to be captive audiences if the parents objected. I realize bigots hate saying anything good about our nation's Christian heritage, but if any person was honest and open minded enough to tell the truth, they would admit our nation became the greatest nation on Earth partly or mostly because of those Christian values we lifted up every Christmas season. Give our heritage some credit and quit trying to censor all the wonderful symbols that played such a large part in our freedoms and liberties. Please spare me any ludicrous rhetoric from the Crusades, etc. wehre none of us hve clue to what caused all the wars. We are talking bout merica and the wonderful values lifting up every person's liberties. It was the true Christians who were at the forfront of ending slavery. 1
point
|