a TEST is coming

[skippy740]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Believe it or not, they teach American History in the Philippines.  And I know all of this.  Well before my kid made me read Rush Limbaugh's Brave Pilgrims book.

America may be founded by Christians fleeing oppression and its Constitution designed by Christians.  BUT, the forefathers made sure that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE MORALITY by codifying the 1st amendment to the Constitution.  So that, even as the world powers of the late 1700's were ruled by Churches, the USA defied the norms and GUARANTEED a SECULAR GOVERNMENT that does not dictate morality but rather PROTECTS the moral beliefs and practices of its individual citizenry.

 

That's the problem right there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government will not impose RELIGION - meaning a STATE RELIGION.  You know - a mandated religion for EVERYONE.

That does NOT mean that there shouldn't have been a standard of morality, but the 1st amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, not to abandon morality.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[skippy740]

And what's the opposite of morality?  Immorality - because it's not an organized religion.

Or as Neal A. Maxwell put it - irreligion as the state religion.

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

And ever since it was overturned, it has been passing in multiple states since.

And it is still a BAD LAW.  You still didn't answer my question.  Do you think the ban on sibling marriages is a bad law?  Why or why not?

 

26 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

I never said that.  I said that same-sex couples adopting children is better than foster care or any other abusing situation.  That is purely my opinion though.

 

You said that.  You said gay marriages don't hurt children.

26 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

There's that "pursuit of happiness" thing again.  That was a principle in the Declaration of Independence, NOT a legal right under the law.  You do not have the "legal right" to be happy.

Plus, with liberty (freedom), that will be used and twisted to mean that evil people (a judgment of morality) can do whatever they want - unless they inflict harm to another person.  And that harm STILL would have to be proven.

Prove it.  As though it was on trial.

You can't outside of a moral foundation and conviction.

You are confused.  

The declaration of independence is the VISION  of the Constitution.  The US Constitution, therefore, codified the Declaration of Independence into a body of law and governance.  There is no "legal right to be happy".   But the entire Constitution is a legal document that protects every citizen's inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Liberty EXACTLY means anybody - including evil people - can do whatever they want.  The LAW is CREATED to provide protections so that society will not be harmed by somebody else's liberty.   It does not GIVE a right.  It PROTECTS a right.  The right originates from the people by virtue of their inalienable liberty.

You don't need a trial to make a law.  You need a healthy functioning Congress (that represent individual moral foundations and convictions that may differ from everybody else's or he may represent a lack of moral convictions) that can debate the merits of one's liberty against its harmful effects on others.

Thinking that the law simply exists and that we simply has to follow it is silly.  A law IS CODIFIED by We, the people's representatives.  We, the people, can create it, nix it, or change it.  That's the beauty of the US Constitution.

 

26 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

A government exists to protect its citizens.  As wickedness grows, the government will CONTINUE to write laws for its citizens - for their protection.  Wickedness is being protected.  Calling something 'wicked'... is a morality judgment.  The law without morality will see a rise in wickedness.  But try to prove that without morality.  You can't.

As President Trump very well expressed in his first address to the United Nations General Assembly - We, the People controls the government.  If We, the People is wicked, then the government will be wicked.  And that's the way it's gonna be until Mormon everyday missionaries convert the hearts of the majority to Godliness.  And that's what I told Rob.  The government is not the source of morality.  It is not the government you need to change to fight wickedness.  It is the people.  When the American people is Godly, the government follows.

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[skippy740]

I will agree to disagree with you because your interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not correct.

You don't understand a republic form of government.

You don't understand the difference between religion and morality.

As such, when vocabulary and meaning are not understood, it is prudent to disengage.

[skippy740]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You don't need a trial to make a law.

When a law is deemed unconstitutional, JUDGES overturn the law.

Why?  Because it's judges that INTERPRET the law.

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[skippy740]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And that's the way it's gonna be until Mormon everyday missionaries convert the hearts of the majority to Godliness.  And that's what I told Rob.  The government is not the source of morality.  It is not the government you need to change to fight wickedness.  It is the people.  When the American people is Godly, the government follows.

I agree with this, except for one part.

It's up to US as members to help find people to teach - one-on-one, one-by-one.  You cannot use the government to make people good or to teach a moral standard.  In fact, that's to set up someone to be a KING and RULER over people.  The government will only impose the moral standard that the people set.  And we already know where that's going.

[Rob Osborn]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Believe it or not, they teach American History in the Philippines.  And I know all of this.  Well before my kid made me read Rush Limbaugh's Brave Pilgrims book.

America may be founded by Christians fleeing oppression and its Constitution designed by Christians.  BUT, the forefathers made sure that the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE MORALITY by codifying the 1st amendment to the Constitution.  So that, even as the world powers of the late 1700's were ruled by Churches, the USA defied the norms and GUARANTEED a SECULAR GOVERNMENT that does not dictate morality but rather PROTECTS the moral beliefs and practices of its individual citizenry.

 

Its not a secular government. Our laws are not based off of secularism. Our constitution and laws were based off of spuritual and religious beliefs and attitudes on morals. You just may have to be American to understand. In almost every single town in America we have the ten commandments on display many of which are at the myriad of courthouses that dot the land. It is a reminder of our duty in law to uphold, above all else, the moral code we have our laws and freedoms based from. Sliwly though, it is coming under fire from the left to remove God and create a separation between their secular agenda and what has always been.

[The Folk Prophet]

Take your political debates and start your own thread!

[skippy740]

This isn't bi-partisan politics here.  This is talking about the role of government and understanding that role.  And I think it's central to your entire thread.

Never mind.  Just saw the post above yours, but there is a movement to remove all sense of morality from the role of government.

Edited September 20, 2017 by skippy740

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, skippy740 said:

That's the problem right there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government will not impose RELIGION - meaning a STATE RELIGION.  You know - a mandated religion for EVERYONE.

That does NOT mean that there shouldn't have been a standard of morality, but the 1st amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, not to abandon morality.

 

 

 

Skippy.  I'm going to abandon this conversation.  This post is OBVIOUSLY you not even bothering to understand anything I'm saying.

I say this:  "GUARANTEED a SECULAR GOVERNMENT that does not dictate morality but rather PROTECTS the moral beliefs and practices of its individual citizenry."

And you say this:  "That does NOT mean that there shouldn't have been a standard of morality, but the 1st amendment guarantees FREEDOM OF WORSHIP, not to abandon morality."

Protecting the moral beliefs and practices of its individual citizenry is the opposite of abandoning morality.  So, I conclude that you are not interested in a discussion.  You are simply interested in grandstanding.  I don't mind grandstanding.  I just don't feel like being entertained by it today.

But as a final word, there is no "standard of morality" in American governance.  Morality (or the lack thereof) is exercised by a democratic representative process bounded by the protections of the Constitution.  The Constitution is not a standard of morality.  The Constitution is simply guaranteed protections.  Canon law is a standard of morality.  Sharia law is a standard of morality.  The Proclamation to the World is a standard of morality.  The 10 commandments is a standard of morality.  The US Constitution is not.

Edited September 20, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

26 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

And I think it's central to your entire thread.

Then talk about that instead of arguing past each other uselessly.

[skippy740]

I understand you just fine.  You're just wrong with your interpretations.  I have posted multiple references, and apparently you haven't bothered to click on them.

You think you're right.  I can tell by reading the words you write that you are not.

You are just slightly off... but it's to a degree that you need some realignment on.  I can't teach it to you.

[skippy740]

And I've already identified where we disagree.

You believe that we have a moral government in our laws.

I disagreed with that.

You kept asking me for MY OPINION.

My opinion is not the law.

That's why we aren't conversing and understanding each other.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well... Here's some sources. There are myriads and myriads more but I don't have the time to hunt them all down.

"The Church is founded on eternal truth. We do not compromise principle." - Ezra Taft Benson

“A milk-and-water allegiance kills; while a passionate devotion gives life and soul to any cause and its adherents. The troubles of the world may largely be laid at the doors of those who are neither hot nor cold; who always follow the line of least resistance; whose timid hearts flutter at taking sides for truth. As in the great Council in the heavens, so in the Church of Christ on earth, there can be no neutrality. We are, or we are not, on the side of the Lord. An unrelenting faith, contemptuous of all compromise, will lead the Church and every member of it, to triumph and the achievement of our high destiny.

“The final conquerors of the world will be the men and women, few or many matters not, who fearlessly and unflinchingly cling to truth, and who are able to say no, as well as yes, on whose lofty banner is inscribed: No compromise with error. …

“Tolerance is not conformity to the world’s view and practices. We must not surrender our beliefs to get along with people, however beloved or influential they may be. Too high a price may be paid for social standing or even for harmony. …

"The Gospel rests upon eternal truth; and truth can never be deserted safely.” (John A. Widtsoe, Conference Report, April 1941, pp. 117, 116.) - quoted by Ezra T. Benson

"There seems to be a tendency among many of us in our society today to live by compromise, rationalization, comparison, and self-justification. Love of right has been replaced by love of acceptance and convenience. Some mistakenly think the pathway of safety is somewhere between the path of righteousness and the road to destruction. Others seem to have convinced themselves that the way to perfection is reached by traveling the highway of compromise."  - Marvin J. Ashton

"Let us have the courage to defy the consensus, the courage to stand for principle. Courage, not compromise, brings the smile of God’s approval. Courage becomes a living and an attractive virtue when it is regarded not only as a willingness to die manfully, but also as a determination to live decently. A moral coward is one who is afraid to do what he thinks is right because others will disapprove or laugh. Remember that all men have their fears, but those who face their fears with dignity have courage as well." - Thomas S Monson

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"  D&C 1:13

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16

"Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen." D&C 87:8

Etc.

Whereas you think I believe that God doesn't love them anymore?

Of course God loves those who have sinned or rejected Him. That isn't relevant to the fact that the means whereby he expresses that love is firstly, and fore-mostly to call them to repentance so that they may have eternal glory and a fullness of joy.

That's because you're the type of person who, like others here, seems to want to make up what others believe and then beat that strawman down!

I didn't say that we shouldn't recognize common ground. Read more carefully.

But if someone misses that common ground, could it not, quite reasonably, be because of a myriad of other justifiable factors, up to and including ideas like mental disorders, emotional issues, chemical imbalances, distractions from work, life-threatening illnesses, abuses, etc., etc., etc.?

Of course if you mean "mention" instead of recognize then I disagree. Stating a recognizing of common ground can be important...in many instances. It certainly isn't the only key to succor, kindness, patience, service, and other Christ-like actions.

The only way for two individuals to be one with each other and one with God is for them both to be one with God, which is where compromise simply doesn't work. The means whereby we become one in the gospel is limited by those who are not following gospel principles. Whereas I believe that finding common ground where another does share those principles is useful and right, it is not, in theory, the end all of the matter. There are times and places where we simply must stand and refuse to compromise despite the hatred, anger, frustration, etc., that is generated because of it.

In the end, finding common ground with someone who is wicked is only, ultimately, a tool to help and bring them to Christ, which is the only means whereby those who follow Christ can become one with them. It cannot be accomplished by compromising with evil so we can all just get along.

None of the scriptures you have referenced say that we should not look for the good in others.  It would seem to you that common ground is compromising.  If so you could not have been more wrong - common ground is that which is COMMON to both.  Of course, for someone that is 100% righteous there will be no common ground with someone that is 100% evil.  But if there is the smallest thing of good those seeking for the good should find that good as common ground – not as a compromise.  Or as our 13th Article of Faith says, "If there is ANYTHING virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy; WE SEEK AFTER THESE THINGS.”  The 13th Article of Faith does not say to compromise.

Perhaps you may have thought I was suggesting looking for common ground of things evil.  If so then I completely overlooked that and apologize.  I thought that it would be understood that common ground to Latter-day Saints, would be that which is good in both.  For me, I have never met anyone that I felt did not have some good that I could exploit as common to us both.  I would add that only through the spirit will one find common good ground with their enemies.

For the record – I believe you and I have a great deal in common.  Even on this subject - but it is my impression that you may have some difficulty with admitting to any common ground with someone that does not agree 100% with exactly everything you want to say.  I will also admit that I push the limits somewhat in an effort to discover if or where our common ground has its boundaries.  So, I see our differences as more the culture of our styles than difference of ideas.

 

The Traveler  

[Rob Osborn]

Paramount to the discussion is the use of the word "secular". When properly used to denote something secular it means that it lacks or is against a religious view. Secularism is a belief system based off of worldliness void of any God or spiritual influence. Its synonymous with being unsacred. Secular humanists are one the main driving bodies to promote a secularist run government where any influence of God, religion, or spirituality is forbidden. So when one speaks of our government being a secular government they are truly saying its a worldly unsacred government.

[Traveler]

49 minutes ago, skippy740 said:

And I've already identified where we disagree.

You believe that we have a moral government in our laws.

I disagreed with that.

You kept asking me for MY OPINION.

My opinion is not the law.

That's why we aren't conversing and understanding each other.

 

As a side note to this discussion – it seems obvious to me that any laws enacted by any government are in essence one segment of the population in that government attempting to impose it morals on another segment of the population that for whatever reason does not have the same morals.  We do not pass laws to define the value of pi or the inversional gravitational constant.   What we do pass as laws are things we believe to be morally right that someone else thinks the opposite is okay – at least for them and their circumstance. 

It is my opinion that if a government is not moral – it must follow that it laws are not just.  It also follows that if laws are moral – by definition those that oppose such laws are immoral. Thus I see that morality in laws is not what should be questioned – the question is – whose morals should dictate what is law?

 

The Traveler  

Edited September 20, 2017 by Traveler

[Traveler]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Paramount to the discussion is the use of the word "secular". When properly used to denote something secular it means that it lacks or is against a religious view. Secularism is a belief system based off of worldliness void of any God or spiritual influence. Its synonymous with being unsacred. Secular humanists are one the main driving bodies to promote a secularist run government where any influence of God, religion, or spirituality is forbidden. So when one speaks of our government being a secular government they are truly saying its a worldly unsacred government.

I have a question - are things impirical to be considered secular or religious (spiritually).  I am concerned you are painting with too broad a brush.  Just becuause someone uses secular methods to define the universial gravitional constant does not mean that any truth they discover is unsacred.  I think it to be a mistake for those with deep religious connections to trash secular science as worldly unsacred movements against G-d.  But then - this may not have been what you meant.  I am hopping we can find commong ground (not necessarly comprimise).

 

The Traveler

[JoCa]

2 hours ago, skippy740 said:

That's the problem right there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Dead wrong.  You are arguing for the Constitution as a living document.  The 1st amendment today does not mean what it meant to the Founders.

Case in Point.

Connecticut has a State Official Religion until 1818.

Massachusetts had an Official State Religion until 1834.

People really need to read history . . .geez.  The 1st Amendment was specifically designed not so that religion would not be official state religion but so that as a whole no religion would be forced down the throats of each independent State.  

The United States was literally 13 separate nations with their own laws, their own religions, their own ideas about moral vs. immoral.  The only reason they came together was throw off the yoke of England.  

The Constitution was designed to allow the States to determine for themselves what was moral and just and the 1st amendment protects the States rights to do how they please.  Notice the first amendment does not say States shall not it says Congress shall not.

The idea that the Supreme Court should decide this issue is just ludicrous.  We are so far from anything the founders ever envisioned.  

Today the Constitution quite honestly doesn't matter-as GW put it . ..it's just a **** piece of paper.  

All of the founders were extremely religious; they would be appalled at today's justifications on what they wrote.  (Sigh) why this country is going to hell in a handbasket----no one reads, understands or cares about history.

At one point the Supreme Court justified slavery on the constitution at another point they didn't. What the Constitution really is today is a tool used by evil people to contort, twist and justify whatever evil ideology they want and then they get to say "SEEE, it is constitutional so you can't do anything about it, so there!"

Another case in point.  We actually had an amendment to the Constitution less than 100 years ago to Prohibit the sale of alcohol.  Think of that . ..just think of it, we amended the constitution to do that.  Then when evil men got wise and convinced enough people they said. "You don't need to pass an amendment, Congress has the power to pass a law". Then they got even wiser and said "Congress doesn't need to pass a law, they can give that power to a governmental agency".  Then they got even wiser and said, "guess what we don't even need Congress to pass a law, we can just have someone sue the government and then judges can create new law based on old rules that were passed".  

Based on that some logic (of passing an amendment) how many amendments would we need to the constitution to accommodate today's laws?

We are so far beyond the Constitution, please spare me the drivel about how the Constitution allows this evil.

Edited September 20, 2017 by JoCa

[skippy740]

Since Congress is the LEGISLATIVE branch that makes the laws... 

And the 1st amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

This is not a far-fetched thing, nor inconsistent.

I appreciate the additional history though.

 

I just looked this up:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Tabular_summary

Tell me... what are the official state religions for each state today?  Why aren't people FORCED to worship as GOVERNMENT says they should?

[skippy740]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

As a side note to this discussion – it seems obvious to me that any laws enacted by any government are in essence one segment of the population in that government attempting to impose it morals on another segment of the population that for whatever reason does not have the same morals.  We do not pass laws to define the value of pi or the inversional gravitational constant.   What we do pass as laws are things we believe to be morally right that someone else thinks the opposite is okay – at least for them and their circumstance. 

It is my opinion that if a government is not moral – it must follow that it laws are not just.  It also follows that if laws are moral – by definition those that oppose such laws are immoral. Thus I see that morality in laws is not what should be questioned – the question is – whose morals should dictate what is law?

 

The Traveler  

 

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

Dead wrong.  You are arguing for the Constitution as a living document.  The 1st amendment today does not mean what it meant to the Founders.

All of the founders were extremely religious; they would be appalled at today's justifications on what they wrote.  (Sigh) why this country is going to hell in a handbasket----no one reads, understands or cares about history.

At one point the Supreme Court justified slavery on the constitution at another point they didn't. What the Constitution really is today is a tool used by evil people to contort, twist and justify whatever evil ideology they want and then they get to say "SEEE, it is constitutional so you can't do anything about it, so there!"

Another case in point.  We actually had an amendment to the Constitution less than 100 years ago to Prohibit the sale of alcohol.  Think of that . ..just think of it, we amended the constitution to do that.  Then when evil men got wise and convinced enough people they said. "You don't need to pass an amendment, Congress has the power to pass a law". Then they got even wiser and said "Congress doesn't need to pass a law, they can give that power to a governmental agency".  Then they got even wiser and said, "guess what we don't even need Congress to pass a law, we can just have someone sue the government and then judges can create new law based on old rules that were passed".  

Based on that some logic (of passing an amendment) how many amendments would we need to the constitution to accommodate today's laws?

We are so far beyond the Constitution, please spare me the drivel about how the Constitution allows this evil.

I think you are correct that the Founders would not really recognize what has become of our nations laws today, but some of it would be other than what we probably think.

For starters, I think they'd be shocked that something like income tax exists.  If you think about the reasons for the revolution, and then inherent attitudes towards taxes...even with representation...well...I think they'd probably die from heart attacks at what our tax system is like today.

They'd probably be shocked at how over riding our Federal government is.  The Federal Government was never viewed to be this strong compared to the states.  Even Hamilton never imagined a Federal government with the type of powers we have, though I think he was for a STRONG Federal government, nothing like what we have today would even close to his approximation of that, it is FAR stronger than he imagined, to the point he may even call it a dictatorial or oligarchic tyranny.

We can thank a Republican for this change of view.  Before the 1860s it was thought that States had the right to make laws, even those that may not go along with that in the Federal government's thought process.  Article 10 was seen as the trump card of the states.  However, when attempting to use that to separate from the Union, Abraham Lincoln over rode that and enforced that idea that the Federal government, in fact, overrides the states, even with Article 10, in all things...and brought them back.  This is not to deride Abraham Lincoln, as I, along with many others would probably say he is perhaps the second (or third) greatest President the US has ever had.

However, from that point on, the Federal Government has gained power more and more over that of State governments.

AS has been pointed out, this atheistic application of ideas to the Constitution was probably never imagined by our Founders.  In their time, even those with more atheistic tendencies (ala...Benjamin Franklin at times) were still deeply appreciative of religion, and almost all of society was Christian in the colonies.  It was with the Christian mindset that many of the principles found in the Bill of Rights, as well as other wise were thought of.  It was the application of the Christian moral code into a codification of laws that created our Constitution, after the failure of other attempts (such as the articles of confederation).  I think it is flexible enough to allow other religions, but the overall idea was that Christian morality would be the one guiding the American principles from there on out, but without establishing any specific Christian religion as a STATE religion (or one that was the religion of the United States, but that each individual state could actually have it's own state religion, as exemplified by several states at that time and afterwards).  As we moved from our Christian roots, we have departed more and more from what the original Founders probably intended.

However, the US still stands, and I would attribute that this IS BECAUSE the Constitution is a living document (otherwise, why allow for Amendments to even be made, if it was not made to be flexible and changeable as according to how times and peoples change).  That is part of the greatness of the Constitution, that it allows the flexibility to change, without completely abandoning the original intent of governance.  I think in this, at least, the founders would not be surprised, as I feel this was part of their intent from the beginning, to have a living document that could change according to how society changes so that the US as a nation could stand for as long as possible while allowing as much freedom to it's people's as possible during their time.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Traveler here's what it's like trying to talk with you:

Me: I think [some gospel principle].

You: So you hate Jesus then?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I have a question - are things impirical to be considered secular or religious (spiritually).  I am concerned you are painting with too broad a brush.  Just becuause someone uses secular methods to define the universial gravitional constant does not mean that any truth they discover is unsacred.  I think it to be a mistake for those with deep religious connections to trash secular science as worldly unsacred movements against G-d.  But then - this may not have been what you meant.  I am hopping we can find commong ground (not necessarly comprimise).

 

The Traveler

Its in the use of the word and the driven point of its use on an agenda that makes its context. Its a politically charged word. You dont have math teachers saying "welcome to secular math 101". Neither do you have a science teacher that says "according to the general secular understanding of the periodic table". Secular doesnt mean anything that doesnt mention the word "God". Secularism is a direct affront to religious thought, belief, spirituality, etc. As it is properly used its always in the context of being against God.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[JoCa]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

However, the US still stands, and I would attribute that this IS BECAUSE the Constitution is a living document (otherwise, why allow for Amendments to even be made, if it was not made to be flexible and changeable as according to how times and peoples change).  That is part of the greatness of the Constitution, that it allows the flexibility to change, without completely abandoning the original intent of governance.  I think in this, at least, the founders would not be surprised, as I feel this was part of their intent from the beginning, to have a living document that could change according to how society changes so that the US as a nation could stand for as long as possible while allowing as much freedom to it's people's as possible during their time.

I agree with most of your thoughts except for 2:

1) Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents we ever had, he was (with the exception of FDR) the closest we have ever come to having a true dictator. He was a tyrant.  There is a very good reason why when Booth shot him he said "Sic semper tyrannis" thus always to tyrants.  There was a very, very good reason why people thought he was a tyrant.  He jailed a sitting Congressman Clement Vallandigham (who was tried by a military court simply for being against the War against the South), he wasn't for succession-he just didn't want to kill those who did.  Lincoln shut down newspapers (he closed over 300 newspapers), suspended Habeas Corpus.  He put Maryland under military law (specifically to suppress the right of the people to vote). 

The man cared nothing for slaves or slavery, he only cared about "preserving the Union at the point of a gun". He had a plan to ship all the slaves back to Africa (and had he not died he would have implemented it); he didn't believe white and blacks could co-exist. Which was the exact same thing that Britain tried to do during the Revolutionary War-except they lost.

Lincoln was a tyrant and he utterly ripped the Constitution to shreds. All the monsters and evils we have in the current Federal Government come back to Lincoln-he utterly and completely revolutionized The United States.

edit: And the Southern States went through a actual legal process to separate, Lincoln claimed they were in "rebellion", but they were in just as much rebellion as the colonies were to England.  It wasn't a process whereby somebody just grabbed a gun.  No the populace actually elected representatives through a Convention process at the very local level who eventually elected leaders who represented them at larger conventions who eventually voted to leave. It was actually (both the revolution and CW) a very thorough legal process or representation.

The Myth and ethos of Lincoln has grow and grow to where he is the greatest president . . .except he was the worst.

Again nobody reads history, nobody studies it so we have this made-up belief of what life was like back then and it comports nothing to reality.

2) The livable portion of the Constitution is the amendment process.  That isn't what I'm talking about.  Over time the very definition of words change, just like the word gay, it used to me one thing now it means something different.  If the Constitution had the phrase " a man has the right to pursue that which makes him gay" in the 1800s that would simply mean the pursuit of happiness.  But over time once the context of the document and a proper understanding of history is lost, people will say, that yes you see right here in the Constitution it says I have a right to be homosexual.

It is a ludicrous thinking, that ultimately leads down the road that words have no meaning or words mean what I want them to mean as long as I have a big enough stick to enforce that meaning.  

In the 1800s the Constitution protected freedoms, today it is used to justify the restriction of freedoms . . why because the definitions of words have changed, the Commerce Clause today means something totally different than it did then.  The amendment process was put in place specifically for this reason, so that if one did not like the meaning of the original phrase, one could change it.

I'll say it here and now, the Constitution will never be amended again (unless it is at a ConCon), why b/c it doesn't have to b/c people have twisted it to mean whatever the heck they want it to mean.

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

3 hours ago, skippy740 said:

Since Congress is the LEGISLATIVE branch that makes the laws... 

And the 1st amendment to the US Constitution says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

This is not a far-fetched thing, nor inconsistent.

I appreciate the additional history though.

 

I just looked this up:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Tabular_summary

Tell me... what are the official state religions for each state today?  Why aren't people FORCED to worship as GOVERNMENT says they should?

That wasn't the point.  The point was that immediately after and for decades later nobody thought the 1st amendment mean the things we twist and contort it to mean today.  Take Public School Prayer. The idea that the 1st Amendment would prohibit a state run public school from saying a prayer ever day would have been laughed at.  Again, the states were originally and primarily religious entities.  Each state was in essence a mini-theocracy.  It's why the southern states were baptists, the northern states were congregationalist, one or two were Catholics (and nobody in those days liked the catholics). 

It cannot be understated at how much religion played a role in the founding of the US.  The colonies originally even compared themselves to the 12 tribes of Israel (forget there were 13).  The banners they displayed during the War were Christian banners. Things like "Unite under Heaven", "Appeal to Heaven", "Appeal to God", with symbols like the fir tree (a Christian symbol-ala Christmas Tree).  Each colony was in reality it's own sect of Christianity. And it was in large part due to ministers that the war was even fought-they believed in setting up Zion which couldn't be done under England.

The entire purpose of the first amendment was to ensure that the United States did not come and tell each state what religion they must worship.  The Baptists in Georgia didn't want the Congregationalist in Massachusetts gaining power over them via the federal government and then via the federal government telling Baptists in GA that they are 2nd class citizens or that their ability to worship God was restricted.

The idea that the 1st Amendment would one day rule out for each and every State the ability to simply hold a prayer to God at the beginning of the day.  They would have balked at it and they would have torn up the entire document and walked away.

The idea that the Constitution would be used to justify homosexual unions would have revolted them-they would look on with disgust at us and say what did you do with what we gave you?

Edited September 21, 2017 by JoCa