CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[Cyber Liberty]

Then our essential rights must originate with men, rather than descend from our creator, right?

More specifically, men (and women) in black robes who would never put up with a-holes taking a knee when they demand everybody stand whenever they enter a room, yes.

[skeeter]

More specifically, men (and women) in black robes who would never put up with a-holes taking a knee when they demand everybody stand whenever they enter a room, yes.

Leftists consider government 'The Creator'.

[txradioguy]

Yeah, but this is no recent development.  The wall of separation has been recognized for a century.   It is part of who we are.

No it's not.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The "Creator" is not a man or nine old jurists in black robes.

The Founders and the Framers very much believed in a higher power that granted rights to man that no one could take away.

10 of those were so important to them that they became the Bill of Rights.  And first on the list is the freedom of religion, the prevention of anyone stopping the free exercise of and the prevention of one monolithic state approved and run "religion".

No where in there is a wall of separation that says government and religion are mutually exclusive.  The Founders and the Framers didn't believe in a wall and any person with a real understanding of the Constitution knows there's not a wall either.

[Jazzhead]

Then our essential rights must originate with men, rather than descend from our creator, right?

Our individual rights "derive from the Creator" (that is, they are natural rights of man).   But the rights of organized religion?   No, those are susceptible to limitation under the laws of a representative Republic.   

There is a huge difference between the First Amendment's free exercise clause and its establishment clause.  The former - freedom of thought and conscience - is a natural right of man that the Constitution is intended to secure.   The latter is a bulwark against collective tyranny.   

[txradioguy]

Leftists consider government 'The Creator'.

And they consider religion to be the "opium of the people".

[Sanguine]

Correct!  The Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the Courts, remains unamended and hence the law of the land.

 
Okay, but so what?   The Founders were very much afraid of religious tyranny;  like Gandhi said,  the problem isn't with Christ but with Christians.

Jazzhead, you are remarkably impervious to any point of view other than the one you are currently flogging.  Have you ever learned anything  or taken a well-considered piece of advice from anyone else?  Just curious.

[Jazzhead]

The Founders and the Framers very much believed in a higher power that granted rights to man that no one could take away.

See my post #103.  Don't conflate the free exercise clause with the establishment clause.   

[Jazzhead]

Jazzhead, you are remarkably impervious to any point of view other than the one you are currently flogging.  Have you ever learned anything  or taken a well-considered piece of advice from anyone else?  Just curious.

Mrs. Jazz gives me advice all the time.  And I'm hardly impervious enough not to take it.   

[txradioguy]

See my post #103.  You're confusing the free exercise clause with the establishment clause.

Nope I'm not.

And the establishment clause...as has been painfully explained to you before in great detail...was not this mythical wall of separation you hide behind...it was written to prevent the government from establishing one "official"church...one official "religion" for the entire country similar to the Church of England where the head of state was also the head of the church.

It wasn't written to stop a nativity scene from being placed on the front lawn of city hall...the Ten Commandments from being placed in a court room or to stop a HS football game in Texas from engaging in a prayer before or after the game.

[Sanguine]

Mrs. Jazz gives me advice all the time.  And I'm hardly impervious enough not to take it.   

One exception does not a trend make.   

[skeeter]

Our individual rights "derive from the Creator" (that is, they are natural rights of man).   But the rights of organized religion?   No, those are susceptible to limitation under the laws of a representative Republic.   

There is a huge difference between the First Amendment's free exercise clause and its establishment clause.  The former - freedom of thought and conscience - is a natural right of man that the Constitution is intended to secure.   The latter is a bulwark against collective tyranny.   

Ass backwards.

Without its judeo christian foundation - if our government is truly secular as you assert - every benefit bestowed upon us by the Constitution is at risk to the whims of the statist tyrants. Thank God your's is still a minority view.

[Jazzhead]

One exception does not a trend make.   

I happen to think this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion.  We're all conservatives here, some perhaps more religious than others. But we all are basing our arguments on the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.   

[Sanguine]

I happen to think this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion.  We're all conservatives here, some perhaps more religious than others. But we all are basing our arguments on the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.

No sir, that is not correct.  Based upon the opinions you express, you are not even close to conservative.  And, trust me, there will be a consensus on that.

[Cyber Liberty]

I happen to think this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion.  We're all conservatives here, some perhaps more religious than others. But we all are basing our arguments on the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.

Y'all keep telling yourself that.  I don't know of anybody here who believes you.  They must not have any "class."

[Cyber Liberty]

No sir, that is not correct.  Based upon the opinions you express, you are not even close to conservative.  And, trust me, there will be a consensus on that.

I'd start a poll on that, but it would devolve into a round-the-clock free for all bashing session.

[Jazzhead]

Ass backwards.

Without its judeo christian foundation - if our government is truly secular as you assert - every benefit bestowed upon us by the Constitution is at risk to the whims of the statist tyrants. Thank God your's is still a minority view.

Our explicit organization as a secular state does not belittle "Judeo Christian" values.   Our culture is clearly rooted in such values,  and our common law is clearly rooted in that of England, which has historically had an official state church.   But we're not England - we're Americans.   Many of us have come here to escape religious tyranny and persecution.   The current wave of Muslim immigrants is in that sense no different than the Quakers who founded my  city of Philadelphia.   Oddball religionists,  minorities all, seeking the protections of a secular state.

  Now you will counter that some of those Muslim immigrants would love the opportunity to establish sharia law.   But it is the Establishment Clause that prevents that - and thank God (or Allah) for that!   

[musiclady]

I happen to think this thread has evolved into a very interesting discussion.  We're all conservatives here, some perhaps more religious than others. But we all are basing our arguments on the Constitution and the vision of the Founders.

Not even close.

The rest of us are arguing the actual Constitution, and you are arguing the Progressive Darwinian Constitution that evolves with the whims of the powerful..... i.e., the Government, which the actual Constitution protects us from.

There is absolutely nothing Conservative in anything you argue.

Not a thing.

[Sanguine]

Yeah, that consensus stuff will bite you in the a**.

[Right_in_Virginia]

  Now you will counter that some of those Muslim immigrants would love the opportunity to establish sharia law.   But it is the Establishment Clause that prevents that - and thank God (or Allah) for that!

Jumped the shark on this one, my friend.  Their goal is to implement Sharia law incrementally .... like frogs in a pot on the stove, it'll be done before we know the water is hot.  So please, don't present all Muslim immigrants as innocents longing to embrace the US Constitution. 

And stop with the "or Allah"     Personally, this is very offensive.

Other than this, carry on.

[Jazzhead]

Jumped the shark on this one, my friend.  Their goal is to implement Sharia law incrementally .... like frogs in a pot on the stove, it'll be done before we know the water is hot.  So please, don't present all Muslim immigrants as innocents longing to embrace the US Constitution. 

The current divisions in the Muslim world among sects are more repressive and deadly than even those in the Christian world at the time of the Founders.  Of course you're correct that some Muslims could care less about our secular Republic, and would defy it if they could to establish sharia law.   But for those who are fleeing the very real persecution they face, this country is a Godsend.   It is no coincidence that this nation has been able to assimilate its immigrants - including religious minorities - far more effectively than Europe. 

[Sanguine]

The current divisions in the Muslim world among sects are more repressive and deadly than even those in the Christian world at the time of the Founders.  Of course you're correct that some Muslims could care less about our secular Republic, and would defy it if they could to establish sharia law.   But for those who are fleeing the very real persecution they face, this country is a Godsend.   It is no coincidence that this nation has been able to assimilate its immigrants - including religious minorities - far more effectively than Europe.

Sorry, Jazzy, but you've made yourself irrelevant by your steadfast refusal to engage in two-way communication.

[Jazzhead]

Not even close.

The rest of us are arguing the actual Constitution, and you are arguing the Progressive Darwinian Constitution that evolves with the whims of the powerful..... i.e., the Government, which the actual Constitution protects us from.

Nope.  I'm not arguing penumbras and eminations.  I've arguing for the primacy of the Establishment Clause, rooted in the Founders' concern over religious tyranny.

Now that doesn't mean I agree with every court ruling on the subject.  I don't, for example, see the harm in honoring cultural traditions by displaying a Christmas tree, creche or Menorah in a public square.   That doesn't strike me as the official endorsement of religion, but rather a benign recognition of holidays that are meaningful to a segment of the community.   

There is absolutely nothing Conservative in anything you argue.

Not a thing.

Always with the hyperbolic personal attacks.  Sad. 

[Jazzhead]

Sorry, Jazzy, but you've made yourself irrelevant by your steadfast refusal to engage in two-way communication.

Don't give a damn what you think of me, Sanguine.  I'm having fun engaging in the dialogue, and so are others or they wouldn't keep responding.

And for the record, the post to which you responded is a perfect illustration of two-way communication.  I acknowledged RIV's criticism without rancor and built upon her points.       

[INVAR]

Don't count your chickens.  Polls show the race as being very tight.  A lot of Alabamans are embarrassed that Moore thinks he's a law unto himself.

That is freaking hilarious coming from an advocate of tyranny like you, who just said in this very thread that "whatever the SCOTUS says IS the law".

[Sanguine]

Don't give a damn what you think of me, Sanguine.  I'm having fun engaging in the dialogue, and so are others or they wouldn't keep responding.

And for the record, the post to which you responded is a perfect illustration of two-way communication.  I acknowledged RIV's criticism without rancor and built upon her points.     

You're killing me!   

No, what you did with RIV's comment was not to engage in two way conversation but instead you merely re-framed her comment to fit into your narrative. 

OK, I'm done.  It's just not fair to you to continue.