Want more proof? Read the Congressional records from February 20th, 1950. You'll see how much of a "bully" McCarthy was while being interrupted something like 67 times by the Senate Majority leader, who was also forcing him to name names. Sorry, can't fight facts. Read the records and see the truth.
Sorry, I forgot. Liberals hate the truth because its always proving how big of a liar they truly are and exposing their true meanings, which is their hatred of America.
In response o the original post by T-Monay820
the seperation of church and state was a concept developed by james madison, and which is a part of the 1st ammendment.
you are clearly wrong on that point.
second of all, the seperation of church and state is good for both religion and govt. the govt. cannot establish a religion(any kind), and that is what ensures that everybody is free to woship if and how they choose.
to have the ten commandments in a judicial building is totally outragous. the ten commandments are a strictly christian symbol and ideal. the law of the land is NOT christian law any more than it is buddhist law, or ilamic law(sharia, which is quite harsh i might add).
lastly, judge moore clearly and openly violated a direct and lawful order from a frederal judge, which means that he broke the law himself. he flaunted his disobedience, and in theprocess showed zero respect for the rule of law in this country.
I understand what you're saying, Smartass, but just to be anal... the ten commandments are not strictly Christian. They are Jewish, also.
Seperation of Church and state never was a written law. Its implied. No where in the founding documents does it say that there must be seperation of church and state. You can't really argue facts (Note: If you do find a document, doubtful considering others have looked and failed, then please show it to me cause it may change my opinion on some things). The first amendment allows people to have freedom to pursue or not to pursue the religion of their choice. (No arguement there?) It also prevents the govn't from establishing a national religion. (I'm hoping the same here.)But it does not mean that the laws of the country cannot be influenced by religious laws and ideas. (I've got the feeling the last comment was off topic)
Quote:Heres a fact: 60% of the American population was supportive of McCarthy through-out his term.
Here is another: McCarthy, a Republican, was censured by a Senate led by his own party.
Seperation of Church and state never was a written law. Its implied. No where in the founding documents does it say that there must be seperation of church and state.
Madison wrote about it in his Memoriam and Remonstrance, and it was clearly an issue when the bill of rights was being created. If you read this, he states very well that seperation is good for both relgion, and govt. I assume Madison'swords on the matter are a good enough authority for you.
You can't really argue facts (Note: If you do find a document, doubtful considering others have looked and failed, then please show it to me cause it may change my opinion on some things). The first amendment allows people to have freedom to pursue or not to pursue the religion of their choice. (No arguement there?)
no argument, although the specific wording does matter if we get into specifics
It also prevents the govn't from establishing a national religion. (I'm hoping the same here.)But it does not mean that the laws of the country cannot be influenced by religious laws and ideas. (I've got the feeling the last comment was off topic)
Ah, here we have the classic basis of this debate. While Justices Rehnquist and Scalia believe what you state here, many others don't. Jefferson states in his letters to Madison that he believes that a firm "wall" should be placed between church and state. The religious clause of the 1st amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the first clause that we are a issue with. I take te first clause to mean(and this was Madison's intent, and Jefferson agreed) that the govt. should not favor religion. What you have to realize is that the favoring of a religion leads very onclusively, to the establishment of religion. This i not a stretch. And therefore, the Supreme Court(relying somewhat on Madison and Jefferson's writings) decided in Everson in 1947, that govt. support for religion would establish religion in general in American society, and also whatever specific religion was in the majority at the time.
It isn't clearly stated in any of the official documents, however, it was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers to firmly seperate religion and govt.
Schadenfreude Wrote:Quote:Heres a fact: 60% of the American population was supportive of McCarthy through-out his term.
Here is another: McCarthy, a Republican, was censured by a Senate led by his own party.
Meaning what? Still, you have yet to put up any valid evidence.
Separation of Church and State was concocted by Madelaine O'Hare. There IS no freedom from religion. It only states that congress shall not recognize a specific religion. A VERY good idea. The Alabama judge was NOT in violation of the 1st amendment as he did not mandate his religion on others.
Kev, i gotta disagree with you. Freedom of religion is the second clause...the first clause is freedom from religion...they balance each other out. There can't be any interference in religion(second clause), but there also can't be any support for religion(first clause).
the founding fathers clearly thought that religion and govt. should be totally seperate. read jefferson and madison on the subject. they don't leave any doubts as to their intentions.
go find a copy of the Memoriam and Remonstrance...it's very enlightening, considering Madison is the one who changed the intention of this 1st ammendment from not just opposing a national religion, but to restricting govt and religion from each other.
If Madison's words aren't enough for you, then i don't know what you need.
T-Monay820 Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:Quote:Heres a fact: 60% of the American population was supportive of McCarthy through-out his term.
Here is another: McCarthy, a Republican, was censured by a Senate led by his own party.
Meaning what? Still, you have yet to put up any valid evidence.
Meaning he was obviously a real bastard if his own party did him in.
Or are you arguing that the Republican party was filled with closet communists, too?
SA, does this go so far as to ban people from praying, not mandated by schools, congress, etc., mind you, among others they associate with on public property to include schools, government buildings? Isn't that the reason FOR the 1st amendment? To be free to practive your religion and speak out when you feel necessary WHERE EVER you happen to be? I still don't see how the monument was a legal recognition of a religion.
I STRONGLY agree in the fact that Congress can't and shouldn't recognize a religion, however, I don't see this as doing so. On the other hand, you have Alan Keyes stating that the states CAN recognize a state religion and that he interprets the Constitution as prohibiting the US from doing so. That is NOT what I believe in. If that were the case, I guess Utah would already have a state religion, Mormon.
I don't believe that the Commandments on public property mandates a "State" religion anymore than I think a statue of Mohammed would recognize Islam. If that's what they want, fine. I think it's petty to argue over it. You will here me complain when there is a move to actually make a law recognizing a religion. ....and I don't think this is a first step. You have to realize that, although we don't recognize a religion, our laws were based on the premise of having a creator.
ME:
Commandments paid for by private monies? No problem with me.
State-Recognized Religion? Not no, but hell no.
i reply to rebelkev
> SA, does this go so far as to ban people from praying, not mandated by schools, congress, etc., >mind you, among others they associate with on public property to include schools, government >buildings?
no, of course not. as long as the prayer is not an official function, and it is not mandatory, or a requirement. one distinction i have to make is that in schools you aren't dealing with people at equal levels. teachers certainly can't lead prayers for 2 reasons. 1)it is the parent's right to decide what religion they want their kids exposed to, if any at all. and second of all, kids are very impressionable, and so if a school were to lead children in prayer, they would be violating the parental right of freedom of religion(the parent acting in the interest of the child).
Isn't that the reason FOR the 1st amendment? To be free to practive your religion and speak out when you feel necessary WHERE EVER you happen to be?
yes, and as a private citizen i CAN pray whereever and whenever i want.
I still don't see how the monument was a legal recognition of a religion.
I STRONGLY agree in the fact that Congress can't and shouldn't recognize a religion, however, I don't see this as doing so. On the other hand, you have Alan Keyes stating that the states CAN recognize a state religion and that he interprets the Constitution as prohibiting the US from doing so. That is NOT what I believe in. If that were the case, I guess Utah would already have a state religion, Mormon.
I don't believe that the Commandments on public property mandates a "State" religion anymore than I think a statue of Mohammed would recognize Islam. If that's what they want, fine. I think it's petty to argue over it. You will here me complain when there is a move to actually make a law recognizing a religion. ....and I don't think this is a first step. You have to realize that, although we don't recognize a religion, our laws were based on the premise of having a creator.
Here is the problem. When you walk into the couthouse and see the ten commandments, the very natural reaction is to question under what law am i subject to? the written one, or god's? furthermore, if you happen to be muslim, buddhist, agnotic, hindi, or even atheist, you will feel that you don't belong in this building. you get the very strong impression that this is a building for christians and jews, and not for you. no citizen should ever be made to feel that way when walking into a govt. building. when a judge puts up the ten commandments, he is clearly establishing christianity and judaism as the religions of choice in his building. the fact that it is paid for by private money doesn't excuse the fact that the govt. through the official capacity of judge Moore as chief justice erected a statue of very deep religious sigificance. now if that isn't an official recognition of religion, then what is? judge moore didn't put this up in his home(private citizen right)...he used his authorityas chief justice to put this up in a PUBLIC building.
Schadenfreude Wrote:T-Monay820 Wrote:Schadenfreude Wrote:Quote:Heres a fact: 60% of the American population was supportive of McCarthy through-out his term.
Here is another: McCarthy, a Republican, was censured by a Senate led by his own party.
Meaning what? Still, you have yet to put up any valid evidence.
Meaning he was obviously a real bastard if his own party did him in.
Or are you arguing that the Republican party was filled with closet communists, too?
Doesn't mean jackshit if it was his party who silenced him or not. You still haven't answered the question: Were there spies in the State department?