Gee,I thought those amendments were created to do just that. And they were created by members of both parties (such as they were at the time up to now).
Of course, had “liberals” done that, you might have a point. It is not ignoring religious beliefs to say the government has no business promoting any particular set of beliefs. That IS the separation of church and state, specified in the US Constitutiion – that citizens may subscribe to any belief system they like – and the government shall be non-denominational. And that’s something most conservatives would buy into as well as liberals. For example, most Christian conservatives woud not like it if say Islamic or Mormon beliefs were being promoted in their child’s school (and I’m not choosing Mormons to start some sort of religious scrap here, but because I can say, from experience, that most evangelicals regard Mormonism as something other than Christianity – and would get up in arms if their kid’s principal, for example, started teaching students Mormon beliefs in a public school). But what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander – the same public school has no business advancing any particular faith, not just ones that are less popular.The founding fathers were predominantly Deists – not Christians – meaning they rejected the Bible (and any other scripture) as the word of God, and believed only a vague and impersonal god or creator who granted humans the power of reason.They wanted separation of Church and State quite explicitly to keep matters of faith from becoming matters of governance.
No…that is not a living Constitution…that is just making things up for your own benefit. A ‘living Constitution’ has to do with actually understanding the original Framers and how the Constitution can be applied to new challenges. Madison, Hamilton and the rest intended it that way and would, no doubt, be horrified at fools like Scalia and friends who think they can use convenience and agenda to deliberately misinterpret the Constitution.
Go back to getting your talking points from MSNBC. You seem to be slipping. You’re not NEARLY as strident and defensive of your messiah Obama as you usually are.
Templo S.U.D. almost 11 years ago
Ask and you shall receive, Zack. Well done, Mr. Belmont.
farren almost 11 years ago
The liberals? What mirror universe do you live in?
Michelle Morris almost 11 years ago
Gee,I thought those amendments were created to do just that. And they were created by members of both parties (such as they were at the time up to now).
blackash2004-tree Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Good explanations from ghenley and Mr. Belmont.
A living constitution means no constitution at all. It is rule by men rather than rule by law.
johbjacob almost 11 years ago
Remarkably simple and perfect analogy.
Comic Minister Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Agreed Zack.
coldsooner almost 11 years ago
Yeah, lucky for us we have Obama to continue to carry out those policies, which he has. What a disappointment.
Greg Johnston almost 11 years ago
Of course, had “liberals” done that, you might have a point. It is not ignoring religious beliefs to say the government has no business promoting any particular set of beliefs. That IS the separation of church and state, specified in the US Constitutiion – that citizens may subscribe to any belief system they like – and the government shall be non-denominational. And that’s something most conservatives would buy into as well as liberals. For example, most Christian conservatives woud not like it if say Islamic or Mormon beliefs were being promoted in their child’s school (and I’m not choosing Mormons to start some sort of religious scrap here, but because I can say, from experience, that most evangelicals regard Mormonism as something other than Christianity – and would get up in arms if their kid’s principal, for example, started teaching students Mormon beliefs in a public school). But what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander – the same public school has no business advancing any particular faith, not just ones that are less popular.The founding fathers were predominantly Deists – not Christians – meaning they rejected the Bible (and any other scripture) as the word of God, and believed only a vague and impersonal god or creator who granted humans the power of reason.They wanted separation of Church and State quite explicitly to keep matters of faith from becoming matters of governance.
rekam Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Gee, I thought it was the Republicants.
Dr Lou Premium Member almost 11 years ago
No…that is not a living Constitution…that is just making things up for your own benefit. A ‘living Constitution’ has to do with actually understanding the original Framers and how the Constitution can be applied to new challenges. Madison, Hamilton and the rest intended it that way and would, no doubt, be horrified at fools like Scalia and friends who think they can use convenience and agenda to deliberately misinterpret the Constitution.
LOWRIDER84 almost 11 years ago
Go back to getting your talking points from MSNBC. You seem to be slipping. You’re not NEARLY as strident and defensive of your messiah Obama as you usually are.