PDA

View Full Version : Some pessimism about incorporation


WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 5:01 PM
There are at least 2 reasons that incorporation might not work for us.


The first reason is the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. Many of you know that there are basically 4 libs, 4 conservatives, and 1 floater. The floater will probably not take a strong stance on 2A. Even the 4 conservatives are not guaranteed to take a strong stance on 2a. Look at Heller for lukewarm support. Of course, this assumes that the non-libs will stay healthy until next spring/summer.

It's also possible that any of the judges will vote opposite of expectations because he/she has some secret reason to support or deny incorporation.


The 2nd reason for pessimism is that even if we get true incorporation, we might lose the war. Look what happened with the First Amendment lately. Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible.

What limits will federal judges put on 2A rights when they think that state's 2A rights don't matter anymore? Right now, most of the free states have limited gun laws. We are pushing for incorporation because we live in a restricted state. However, all 50 states might end up with laws that are even worse than our current CA ones.

Also, incorporation might pass due to the current mix on the USSC, but what happens when there are 5+ libs on the bench? You know they will restrict 2A across the country. You won't be able to move to a free state anymore, because there won't be any. Game, set, match.



Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

bodger
11-10-2009, 5:05 PM
Absolutely frightening thought. Seems plausible though.

They can only push it so far until they get more than they bargained for.

Ding126
11-10-2009, 5:07 PM
:hide:

FreshTapCoke
11-10-2009, 5:14 PM
Look what happened with the First Amendment lately. Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible.

Does the First Amendment protect the rights of government from infringement as well as individuals?

bwiese
11-10-2009, 5:26 PM
T
Look what happened with the First Amendment lately. Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible.

Yup. Because a substantial fraction of those states' citizens have their rights violated (either due to lack of belief or belief in a conflicting religion) by seeing a gov't building with relgious propaganda.

There's a few good ideas in 10 Commandments. But many of us do indeed covet our neighbor's wife's or *** or wife's ***, we work on Sundays, and we also do not like to be told by a state building placard what gods to worship or how to worship them.


What limits will federal judges put on 2A rights when they think that state's 2A rights don't matter anymore? Right now, most of the free states have limited gun laws. We are pushing for incorporation because we live in a restricted state. However, all 50 states might end up with laws that are even worse than our current CA ones.

Heller has established much of what RKBA is, in a limited area.
Guns that are as common or more common than Dick Heller's revolver are protected by RKBA.

The key element of incorporation will just radiate Heller protections into other states.

At worst, some registration could be required (as I mentioned above) but that's pretty irrelevant - at that point registration can't lead to confisaction.


Also, incorporation might pass due to the current mix on the USSC, but what happens when there are 5+ libs on the bench? You know they will restrict 2A across the country. You won't be able to move to a free state anymore, because there won't be any.

So the goal is to get there before Thomas & Scalia suffer from too many cheeseburgers and pasta.

CAL.BAR
11-10-2009, 5:27 PM
Here's the real problem. . .

Incorporation will only apply Heller (and other Federal cases) to California. However, neither Heller nor any other Federal case has ever commented on 10 rd mags, AW bans, 10 day waiting periods, ammunition sales limitations, Cow Palace sales, CCW's or ANY of the other horrible CA laws they have shoved down our throats.

In short, incorporation only saves us from a wholesale ban of ALL pistols (Heller) and maybe from the stupid Ca. approved handgun list under the new DC actions post Heller (maybe)

But that's about it.If KA wants us to give a urine test before buying ammo, there's NOTHING in the Federal law that stops them from doing so. What's more, there's reams of decisions regarding state's rights which allows individual states to handle their internal matters as they see fit w/o the intervention of the Feds.

I wish I were wrong about this, but. . . that's the deal.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 5:30 PM
Does the First Amendment protect the rights of government from infringement as well as individuals?

No. The 10th Amendment used to protect the rights of states. That's why Montana, TN, Ohio, and other states are passing legislation to try and recover their rights...starting with firearms.

WeThePeople
11-10-2009, 5:38 PM
Yup. Because a substantial fraction of those states' citizens have their rights violated (either due to lack of belief or belief in a conflicting religion) by seeing a gov't building with relgious propaganda.

There's a few good ideas in 10 Commandments. But many of us do indeed covet our neighbor's wife's or *** or wife's ***, we work on Sundays, and we also do not like to be told by a state building placard what gods to worship or how to worship them.


I didn't bring up the 10C because of any religious beliefs. It's just an example of what changes when the Feds overrule the states.

Kid Stanislaus
11-10-2009, 5:43 PM
"The 2nd reason for pessimism is that even if we get true incorporation, we might lose the war. Look what happened with the First Amendment lately. Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible."

Thank goodness that garbage is being curtailed!

curtisfong
11-10-2009, 5:51 PM
It's just an example of what changes when the Feds overrule the states.

Ah yes. States rights vs Incorporation. Sooner or later, there is going to be a showdown.

read this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3132005&postcount=26

and this

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=227622

coolusername2007
11-10-2009, 5:56 PM
I hope nobody here thinks perversion of the Constitution and/or corruption will end with McDonald? You fight the good fights as they come.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 6:05 PM
I didn't bring up the 10C because of any religious beliefs. It's just an example of what changes when the Feds overrule the states.

Yep, some rights come back.

Kharn
11-10-2009, 6:17 PM
From what I've heard, Kennedy's vote is more assured for incorporation than it was for Heller, most of the pandering in Scalia's opinion was done for Kennedy's benefit (and most of it was trying to cleave MGs away from other guns so they could remain banned in a post-Heller world). You also have the possibility of the liberal judges going towards our side. The P&I clause never had a chance to spread its wings, and if it is revived in McDonald every pet right of the American Left will suddenly be open to protection by judicial fiat.

P&I incorporation is not a bad thing for us, read Dred Scott, what does that opinion say? If black people were equal to whites, they could carry arms whereever they went. Sounds a lot like court-ordered nationwide open carry, doesnt it?

Scalia also chose carry cases in Heller that exclusively said one mode of carry could be banned because another was available.

Ever since Roe v Wade passed, people have cried that changing the judicial balance will cause Roe to be overturned. Its been 30+ years, with how many new Justices and changes in court balance, and Roe's still valid case law. Once a right's declared fundamental it takes some extreme action to declare it no longer exists.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 6:39 PM
Ever since Roe v Wade passed, people have cried that changing the judicial balance will cause Roe to be overturned. Its been 30+ years, with how many new Justices and changes in court balance, and Roe's still valid case law. Once a right's declared fundamental it takes some extreme action to declare it no longer exists.

Yup.

And if Roe v Wade applies an unenumerated right to the state level, how can the 2nd/RKBA *not* be applicable nor incorporated?

Unfortunately some lawyers friendly to RKBA get cold feet when they hear that, because they're letting their other politics or religion get in the way of RKBA even when they need to use law surrounding that as part of their argument. It's already caused at least one lawyer transition out of one org when he couldn't get his head around that matter.

bodger
11-10-2009, 6:53 PM
Okay, once again my less than legally erudite mind has failed to assimilate the important facts.

If we do get incorporation in CA, what is the major benefit to us gunnies? What do we get that we don't have now, and what does it help us avoid in the future as far as unwanted gun laws?

bulgron
11-10-2009, 6:57 PM
Okay, once again my less than legally erudite mind has failed to assimilate the important facts.

If we do get incorporation in CA, what is the major benefit to us gunnies? What do we get that we don't have now, and what does it help us avoid in the future as far as unwanted gun laws?

It gets us the ability to sue the State of California over gun laws based on 2A grounds. That's it.

Right now, we can't even do that. This is why Sykes (the CCW case) is on hold. Without incorporation, we have no case. With incorporation, we have the ability to sue, and probably will prevail.

postal
11-10-2009, 7:04 PM
Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible.

Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

This is NOT a 1st amendment issue.

It's a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE issue. Not all of us worship your dog or 10 suggestions.

wildhawker
11-10-2009, 7:06 PM
Wethepeople,

Assume you're correct. I didn't see any path forward in your post. What would you suggest we do in between now and failure?

kf6tac
11-10-2009, 7:08 PM
This is NOT a 1st amendment issue.

It's a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE issue. Not all of us worship your dog or 10 suggestions.

Um, where do you think the doctrine of separation of church and state draws its legal basis? It's the Establishment Clause of... wait for it... The First Amendment.

postal
11-10-2009, 7:17 PM
Um, where do you think the doctrine of separation of church and state draws its legal basis? It's the Establishment Clause of... wait for it... The First Amendment.

Brain fart! Just came back to this thread to fix it, and ya beat me to it!

bwiese
11-10-2009, 7:27 PM
It's a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE issue.
Not all of us worship your dog or 10 suggestions.

Depends if the dog is cute and housebroken.

And I *LOVE* 10 Suggestions. I am officially stealing that phrase from you, thanks! ;)

7x57
11-10-2009, 7:39 PM
And I *LOVE* 10 Suggestions. I am officially stealing that phrase from you, thanks! ;)

It's been used sardonically by a long, long line of preachers, but I suppose you might not know that. ;)

7x57

GaryV
11-10-2009, 7:46 PM
I think this is mostly FUD.

First, I'm not worried whether we'll get incorporation. While it's always possible things could go differently, it seems highly likely that the court will not only incorporate, but incorporate under P or I. Incorporation is not likely to go along party lines, because the underlying constitutional issue is not the RKBA, but the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Second, the 10Cs issue is totally different than the RKBA. The First Amendment originally protected official state religions against the federal government, as well as protecting individual rights to religion. It did this by forbidding the federal government from getting into the business of religion. But with incorporation, that limitation was placed on the states as well. It protected our individual rights more, by limiting what the state could do. That's what incorporation does - it puts the same constitutional restrictions on the states that the BoR places on the federal government. What it does not do is limit the rights of individual citizens.

In fact, it specifically extends the protections of the Constitution, making our individual rights safer. Since we're concerned about the individual RKBA, not some state RKBA, the analogy with the 10Cs is completely invalid. Your individual right to be free in your own religion has been strengthened by incorporation, not weakened. That is unless your idea of acceptable religious expression includes having the state somehow involved in promoting your particular religion over others. By prohibiting that, incorporation has made it illegal for the state to use your tax money to promote someone else's religion over yours. Some people are just upset because they think that if it were undone, their religion would be the one to receive state endorsement.

Third, the judges don't place restrictions on rights. What they do is declare what limits can be placed on your rights by others. Without incorporation, the state can pass any limit, except those prohibited by the individual state constitutions. With incorporation, there will be federal prohibitions on certain limits. So, no matter how narrowly they define the 2nd Amendment, incorporation cannot place any more limits on the RKBA, it can only restrict limits on it. Right now any state, as long as it acts within the bounds of its own constitution, can place any limits on your right that it wants. Despite that, most are fairly reasonable about the limits they've imposed (though California isn't one of them). With incorporation they will have less power to make limits. The only thing the court can do after incorporation is determine how much less power the states will have than they do now. They cannot grant them more than they already have, since their power right now is unlimited by the federal Constitution.

You seem to be confused about what incorporation does. It does not create a national standard of gun control, based on whatever the court later rules, it only creates a national minimum standard for protection of the right to keep and bear arms. States may still allow even more free exercise of that right than the national minimum, as most already do (since the national minimum right now is zero protection), but they will, for the first time, be specifically prohibited from providing less protection of your right.

For example, let's say that somewhere down the line a very liberal court rules that states may require you to register all your guns annually, and allow police inspections of your guns and their storage place every year as well. That doesn't mean that every state is then required to do so, or that every state will do it. It simply means that those really screwed up states like CA, NY, and IL will be able to do it if they want, while sensible states like VT, TX, and FL probably will not.

There is virtually no way in which incorporation could be a bad thing. Which is why it's so great that it is also almost a sure thing.

tankerman
11-10-2009, 9:03 PM
Incorporation that also suggests "common sense" gun laws/regulation is a necessity = A loss.

I thinks that's what's going to happen.

bwiese
11-10-2009, 9:10 PM
Incorporation that also suggests "common sense" gun laws/regulation is a necessity = A loss.


Incorporation itself just radiates Heller downward into the states.

"Common sense" gun laws have already been challenged in DC (Roster, soon AW). DC gave up and passed emergency regulations that sucked all new guns onto their Roster. Yeah, DC still has a Roster - it's called Shotgun News and GunBroker.

Heller prevents bans of guns that are not "dangerous and unusual", and the use of the word 'and' there is NOT casual. Any nonNFA gun in circulation that's as common (or more) than Dick Heller's revolver passes muster. Bans on AWs won't fly either, when viewed as ordinary rifles with extra plastic on them (i.e, Ruger Mini14 is a great example, as would AK vs Saiga).

bodger
11-10-2009, 9:16 PM
It gets us the ability to sue the State of California over gun laws based on 2A grounds. That's it.

Right now, we can't even do that. This is why Sykes (the CCW case) is on hold. Without incorporation, we have no case. With incorporation, we have the ability to sue, and probably will prevail.


So, it's somewhat like gaining ground from which to launch a campaign to gain more ground.

Without the beachhead of incorpration, there's no way to push inland.
It's the lawsuits that result from incorporation that give us the victories.

Okay. got it.

tankerman
11-10-2009, 9:17 PM
Crappy new laws pop-up faster than they can be knocked down in court.Incorporation itself just radiates Heller downward into the states.

"Common sense" gun laws have already been challenged in DC (Roster, soon AW). DC gave up and passed emergency regulations that sucked all new guns onto their Roster. Yeah, DC still has a Roster - it's called Shotgun News and GunBroker.

Heller prevents bans of guns that are not "dangerous and unusual", and the use of the word 'and' there is NOT casual. Any nonNFA gun in circulation that's as common (or more) than Dick Heller's revolver passes muster. Bans on AWs won't fly either, when viewed as ordinary rifles with extra plastic on them (i.e, Ruger Mini14 is a great example, as would AK vs Saiga).

wildhawker
11-10-2009, 9:20 PM
Crappy new laws pop-up faster than they can be knocked down in court.

Especially when all the gun rights advocates spend their time online in a forum telling everyone how impotent we'll be post-incorporation.

tankerman
11-10-2009, 9:34 PM
Especially when all the gun rights advocates spend their time online in a forum telling everyone how impotent we'll be post-incorporation.OOOO, you're so witty.

Gray Peterson
11-10-2009, 9:44 PM
There are at least 2 reasons that incorporation might not work for us.


The first reason is the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. Many of you know that there are basically 4 libs, 4 conservatives, and 1 floater. The floater will probably not take a strong stance on 2A. Even the 4 conservatives are not guaranteed to take a strong stance on 2a. Look at Heller for lukewarm support. Of course, this assumes that the non-libs will stay healthy until next spring/summer.

I think you underestimate the support of the "liberal" judges for incorporation. It's from them that a 5 judge majority for P&I incorporation would likely occur.

It's also possible that any of the judges will vote opposite of expectations because he/she has some secret reason to support or deny incorporation.

Again, you are correct.


The 2nd reason for pessimism is that even if we get true incorporation, we might lose the war. Look what happened with the First Amendment lately. Individual states used to be able to display the 10 Commandments on public property, such as in state buildings. Now, because of incorporation, those displays are not possible.

Just have a very important question here: Why do you always assume that every single person in a gun forum automatically and without fail support the idea of the posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings? Not all gun owners are christians.

I cite the Treaty of Tripoli, which was agreed to by the United States Senate in the late 18th Century (1794 to be exact)

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was voted on by members of the Senate who had fought in the Revolutionary War and actually created the US Constitution and passed the Bill of Rights.

What limits will federal judges put on 2A rights when they think that state's 2A rights don't matter anymore? Right now, most of the free states have limited gun laws. We are pushing for incorporation because we live in a restricted state. However, all 50 states might end up with laws that are even worse than our current CA ones.

First off, states don't have rights. PERIOD. They have powers. You also don't understand that the constitutional amendments are restrictions on GOVERNMENT. Incorporation made those restrictions on GOVERNMENT applicable to state and local governments. The amendments are not a command to the states to impose gun control, or attempts to ban the wearing of a cross necklace by a private party. The problem is that you're conflating bans on governments, their officials, and their actors from establishing religion, and private persons from doing so.

If a private person goes onto a public park and displays a cross in their hand for a protest, that is their right under freedom of speech, expression, protest, AND religion! I may disagree with their protesting, but I don't support the power of government at ANY level to arrest said person for trespassing during the normal operating hours of the park. This is precisely the kind of arguments that would be made to prevent cities and counties from using their powers as "land owners" to try to ban guns. They can do the same to minority religions, too.

Also, incorporation might pass due to the current mix on the USSC, but what happens when there are 5+ libs on the bench? You know they will restrict 2A across the country. You won't be able to move to a free state anymore, because there won't be any. Game, set, match.



Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

That's because you don't understand the point of "floors" of civil liberties. Even during the time that the 2A was considered a "collective right" in most of the Court of Appeals jurisdictions (which was turned aside by Heller), there are 42 states that protected an individual right to RKBA. Some range from completely ineffective (MA, IL) to very effective (ID). Those state constitutional protections are supposed to protect against state intrusion. The biggest offenders in terms of gun controls IS states and localities, period, just like they were the biggest offenders when they wanted to disarm the freedman and be allowed to mass murder them after the Civil War. Long live John Bingham!

berto
11-10-2009, 10:05 PM
What limits will federal judges put on 2A rights when they think that state's 2A rights don't matter anymore? Right now, most of the free states have limited gun laws. We are pushing for incorporation because we live in a restricted state. However, all 50 states might end up with laws that are even worse than our current CA ones.

Also, incorporation might pass due to the current mix on the USSC, but what happens when there are 5+ libs on the bench? You know they will restrict 2A across the country. You won't be able to move to a free state anymore, because there won't be any. Game, set, match.

Be careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

We have no 2A rights in CA right now, hence the need for incorporation. Incorporation applies a 2A right to each state. It helps those of us in states where no such right exists. Free states by and large have 2A rights which are already protected by the state's constitution. incorporation allows us to fight CA law in court and keep it from spreading. Silly restrictions killed here can't spread.

coolusername2007
11-10-2009, 10:30 PM
We have no 2A rights in CA right now, hence the need for incorporation. Incorporation applies a 2A right to each state. It helps those of us in states where no such right exists. Free states by and large have 2A rights which are already protected by the state's constitution. incorporation allows us to fight CA law in court and keep it from spreading. Silly restrictions killed here can't spread.

We wouldn't need incorporation if our state's constitution had a RKBA in it. And if for some reason SCOTUS doesn't incorporate, that'll be our only option left...to amend our state constitution.

Bruce
11-10-2009, 10:54 PM
This is NOT a 1st amendment issue.

It's a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE issue. Not all of us worship your dog or 10 suggestions.

Separation of Church and State = Global Warming = Loch Ness Monster = The Easter Bunny et al.

"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."

Nope, no such phrase as "Separation of Church and State" in there. :D

7x57
11-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Nope, no such phrase as "Separation of Church and State" in there. :D

Hush! Half the people who draw a line in the sand on the original meaning of the 2A basically couldn't care less what the establishment clauses really meant, because they like the Separation doctrine just fine. It's impolite to actually point out the Living Constitution behind the curtain.... ;)

7x57

M. D. Van Norman
11-10-2009, 11:27 PM
Im sorry that the 14th Amendment offends some folks but not really. :p

snobord99
11-10-2009, 11:50 PM
the underlying constitutional issue is not the RKBA, but the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

THANK YOU! FINALLY! Someone that gets it!!! :D

kf6tac
11-11-2009, 12:17 AM
Separation of Church and State = Global Warming = Loch Ness Monster = The Easter Bunny et al.

"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."

Nope, no such phrase as "Separation of Church and State" in there. :D

You want a real fun one? There is no federal equal protection clause in the Constitution. Go ahead, look for it.

GaryV
11-11-2009, 3:52 AM
You want a real fun one? There is no federal equal protection clause in the Constitution. Go ahead, look for it.

Really? Strange. Unless, of course, your copy of the Constitution predates the end of the Civil War.

Amendment 14, Section 1: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The First Amendment bars the federal government from making any law regarding religion. Incorporation of that prohibition means that state and lower governments are also barred from endorsement or restriction of any religion. That creates a de facto separation of church and state, since any endorsement or restriction of religion at any level of government would violate the 14th Amendment rights of the citizens who did not subscribe to the same mythology.

While the First Amendment originally did protect a state power to establish religion (and banned the federal government from doing so, or interfering with the state power), incorporation under the 14th Amendment stripped that power from the states and put them under the same prohibition of being involved in any way in the business of religion.

This is the same as with the Second Amendment, which only bars federal government action. All states, within the limits of their own constitutions, have absolute power right now to infringe on your RKBA all they wish, even though most don't to anywhere near their legal authority. Incorporation will strip them of that power, just as it stripped from them the power to get involved in religion.

Think of it this way: just as incorporation of the First Amendment restricted the ability of fundamentalist christians from using the power and establishment of government to force their narrow religious views down everyone else's throats, so will incorporation of the Second Amendment restrict the ability of rapid anti-gunners to use those same powers to force their idiotic views on everyone else. Everyone will just have to be happy applying their own beliefs to their own lives, without getting official endorsement from the state, or using the power of the state to force others to apply them in their lives.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 4:49 AM
Everyone will just have to be happy applying their own beliefs to their own lives, without getting official endorsement from the state, or using the power of the state to force others to apply them in their lives.

This is truly the crux of the matter in my opinion.

Do people really want the state imposing their religious beliefs upon others in a republic where the fundamental guiding principle is supposed to be that of liberty? Liberty is a meaningless concept unless it applies to all, and the imposition of religious restrictions upon others does nothing but make the society as a whole even more restrictive than it already is. There are far more than enough restrictions on people as it is -- there is no need to add to them simply to satisfy the religious beliefs of some subset of the population.

If freedom for all isn't a concept that a religious person can get behind due to his religion, then I would suggest that this country isn't the right one for him. There are plenty of countries that do not have liberty as a core defining principle, and those countries would probably prove a better fit for someone whose tolerance for the freedom of others is limited by his religion.

Bruce
11-11-2009, 4:54 AM
The First Amendment bars the federal government from making any law regarding religion. Incorporation of that prohibition means that state and lower governments are also barred from endorsement or restriction of any religion. That creates a de facto separation of church and state, since any endorsement or restriction of religion at any level of government would violate the 14th Amendment rights of the citizens who did not subscribe to the same mythology.


Read it again;" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Not "regarding", establishment. There can be no "Church of the United States of America". The English, under Henry VIII, created the Church of England and the founders didn't want that to happen here. A Nativity on the city hall lawn is not a law establishing a religion.

joelberg
11-11-2009, 5:49 AM
Depends on how you interpret an "establishment of religion". I see that as referring to churches and synagogues and religious heirarchies (or lack thereof). Not just simply regarding the government establishing a religion (but also that).

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 7:55 AM
Depends on how you interpret an "establishment of religion". I see that as referring to churches and synagogues and religious heirarchies (or lack thereof). Not just simply regarding the government establishing a religion (but also that).

But note that the clause also says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

The problem with making any law that has a religious basis is that there's a not inconsiderable chance it will conflict with someone else's religion, which means that the law would therefore prevent the free exercise of that second person's religion (remember that laws in general are prohibitions on actions, so the chances are very high that the law in question really would prohibit the specific free exercise in question).

For this reason, and for the reason that the country's primary founding principle is freedom for all, I believe it is far better for the government to stay as far away from religion as possible.

sergeantrex
11-11-2009, 9:13 AM
THANK YOU! FINALLY! Someone that gets it!!! :D

True Dat! Found this article on Law.com. Invoke the 14th overturn slaughterhouse, Grand Slam! This could lead to more freedom for everybody!



http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428529045

kf6tac
11-11-2009, 9:17 AM
GaryV, read the equal protection clause again. It says "no State" shall deny equal protection. By its own terms, it does not apply to the federal government, that is, it does not guarantee federal equal protection.

The real fun part is that the Supreme Court realized this was absurd, so it conjured up an equal protection guarantee out of the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The only reason I point this out is that the Fifth Amendment says not a word about equal protection, so anyone who thinks the first amendment should not encompass separation of church and state because it says no such thing must also then insist that the federal government is not obligated to abide by equal protection because the Constitution says no such thing.

MasterYong
11-11-2009, 9:33 AM
GaryV, read the equal protection clause again. It says "no State" shall deny equal protection. By its own terms, it does not apply to the federal government, that is, it does not guarantee federal equal protection.

The real fun part is that the Supreme Court realized this was absurd, so it conjured up an equal protection guarantee out of the due process clause of the fifth amendment. The only reason I point this out is that the Fifth Amendment says not a word about equal protection, so anyone who thinks the first amendment should not encompass separation of church and state because it says no such thing must also then insist that the federal government is not obligated to abide by equal protection because the Constitution says no such thing.

Call me an idiot, but the term "state" is often used to refer to a governmental body. Example "iran is a rogue state". In that example state = government.

AEC1
11-11-2009, 10:00 AM
Can someone please show me where in the US constitutione the words "seperation of church and state"

They dont. It does state the congress shall pass no law regarding or istituting a national religion. They cant make you a baptist, but that does not mean that our law was not based on Judeo Christian values. It is in now way a violation of the constitution for the court to display the 10 Comandments.

Telling you you will go to jail or get fined if you dont take weekly comunion, now that would be a violation of your rights.

snobord99
11-11-2009, 10:29 AM
Can someone please show me where in the US constitutione the words "seperation of church and state"

They dont. It does state the congress shall pass no law regarding or istituting a national religion. They cant make you a baptist, but that does not mean that our law was not based on Judeo Christian values. It is in now way a violation of the constitution for the court to display the 10 Comandments.

Telling you you will go to jail or get fined if you dont take weekly comunion, now that would be a violation of your rights.

Acutally, what it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Why does displaying the 10 Commandments violate this? Because the 10 Commandments is, or or less, a religious document from a particular religion and a state display of that is the endorsement of said religion. If a state decided to make a copy of the New Testament available at the courthouse while not offering ANY other religious text, would that not be endorsing/establishing a particular religion in light of the fact that no other religious document is offered?

bwiese
11-11-2009, 10:34 AM
We wouldn't need incorporation if our state's constitution had a RKBA in it.

Actually, we might. Many state constitutions with RKBAs have been watered down to sub-Heller standards with bad state-level interpretations.

I keep hearing Oregonians boast about their RKBA, but as Don Kates has researched, Oregon's may likely only protect the right to own muskets.

bwiese
11-11-2009, 10:38 AM
It does state the congress shall pass no law regarding or istituting a national religion. They cant make you a baptist, but that does not mean that our law was not based on Judeo Christian values.

Up to a point. But when the govt makes a decision based on a religiously-driven aspect (forcing creationism to be taught, say) then that is indeed instituting a religious aspect and must be fought tooth & nail.

Freedom of religion must necessarily include (at a gov't level) freedom FROM religion. Now I'm not one of these folks protesting "In God we trust" on our money but if it gets much worse than that I am bothered.

It is in no way a violation of the constitution for the court to display the 10 Comandments.Sorry, the Supremes say otherwise.

Many of the 10 Suggestions bother many people. (What about folks with a multitheistic religion? What about agnostic/atheists?) Hell, I regularly try to figure out which one of 'em to break daily.

762cavalier
11-11-2009, 10:46 AM
Many of the 10 Suggestions bother many people. (What about folks with a multitheistic religion? What about agnostic/atheists?) Hell, I regularly try to figure out which one of 'em to break daily.

Well Bill, Might I suggest for yours and the foundations sake that you stay away from the "Shall not Kill" one.:D;)

kf6tac
11-11-2009, 11:13 AM
Call me an idiot, but the term "state" is often used to refer to a governmental body. Example "iran is a rogue state". In that example state = government.

In today's common parlance yes, but never onces does the Constitution refer to the country as a whole (or the federal government specifically) as a state. Every reference in the Constitution to the nation on a federal level invokes "the United States," or specifically names one or more of the three branches of the federal government.

GuyW
11-11-2009, 11:24 AM
Crappy new laws pop-up faster than they can be knocked down in court.

That's what Injunctions are for - they stay imposition of the new laws until they can be shot down in Court...
.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 11:38 AM
Can someone please show me where in the US constitutione the words "seperation of church and state"

They dont. It does state the congress shall pass no law regarding or istituting a national religion. They cant make you a baptist, but that does not mean that our law was not based on Judeo Christian values. It is in now way a violation of the constitution for the court to display the 10 Comandments.

Telling you you will go to jail or get fined if you dont take weekly comunion, now that would be a violation of your rights.

Would you be so accepting of this idea of displaying religious commandments at the local courthouse if the courthouse in question decided to display selected quotes out of the Koran instead, given the current state of affairs?

I can't speak for you, but somehow I suspect you'd be less than enthused with the idea, perhaps to the point that you'd protest it mightily.

I'm a bit on the fence about the Constitutionality of government display of religious quotations and such, but it should be plainly obvious that it is a bad idea for the government to do so even if it is Constitutional. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. ALL the people, not just some specific religious subset.

Chatterbox
11-11-2009, 11:44 AM
...

hoffmang
11-11-2009, 4:27 PM
There will be far more words used in McDonald about Privileges or Immunities than there will about firearms.

Heller stood for two things in the 2A. Who was protected (we the people) and could we keep handguns. The 2A clearly protects more items than that, but the KISS strategy is the winning one here. The followup cases - what does bear mean? - have already been filed.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-11-2009, 4:27 PM
There will be far more words used in McDonald about Privileges or Immunities than there will about firearms.

Heller stood for two things in the 2A. Who was protected (we the people) and could we keep handguns. The 2A clearly protects more items than that, but the KISS strategy is the winning one here. The followup cases - what does bear mean? - have already been filed.

-Gene

AEC1
11-11-2009, 4:33 PM
Up to a point. But when the govt makes a decision based on a religiously-driven aspect (forcing creationism to be taught, say) then that is indeed instituting a religious aspect and must be fought tooth & nail.

Freedom of religion must necessarily include (at a gov't level) freedom FROM religion. Now I'm not one of these folks protesting "In God we trust" on our money but if it gets much worse than that I am bothered.

Sorry, the Supremes say otherwise.

Many of the 10 Suggestions bother many people. (What about folks with a multitheistic religion? What about agnostic/atheists?) Hell, I regularly try to figure out which one of 'em to break daily.

Gene I have the utmost respect for you, but since when has the SCOTUS been right 100% of the time. Just cause they said it doesent mean I have to buy it. They also still allow each sesion of congress to open with a prayer, and that is much more along the lines of forcing religon on people. If the founders did not want any referance to God why is it so prevalent in our founding documents. "we are endowed by our creator", and such?

bwiese
11-11-2009, 4:40 PM
Gene I have the utmost respect for you, but since when has the SCOTUS been right 100% of the time. Just cause they said it doesent mean I have to buy it. They also still allow each sesion of congress to open with a prayer, and that is much more along the lines of forcing religon on people. If the founders did not want any referance to God why is it so prevalent in our founding documents. "we are endowed by our creator", and such?

AEC1,

SCOTUS, right or wrong, is right - they're the reference standard for laws we live under. (Unless we have a civil war and dispose of the gov't, which won't happen.)

And I am not Gene. (We both are thankful for that ;)

There are some traditional uses of "god" in ceremonial contexts that have stuck around for a long time. They'll stick around even longer.

But putting the 10 Suggestions on a state courthouse really is stretching things - just like a town putting up a cross or menorah, or a school system teaching creationism.

AEC1
11-11-2009, 4:48 PM
but the founders taught creationism by stating we are endowed by our creator!

AEC1
11-11-2009, 4:49 PM
I am sure this like many other points of disagreement will not ever be solved, especialy by the musings of posters to a forum site...

bwiese
11-11-2009, 4:49 PM
but the founders taught creationism by stating we are endowed by our creator!

That was metaphorically speaking. They meant our rights were pre-existing and rights did not exist merely because a goverment gave them to us.

kcbrown
11-11-2009, 6:02 PM
but the founders taught creationism by stating we are endowed by our creator!

Have you ever wondered why they used the term "our creator" instead of "God"?

It's because many of the founders of the U.S. were of largely deist persuasion, and not Christians in the sense that most people think of. Their belief system emphasized a "hands off" approach on the part of the creator, to the extent that they believed that all real-world events have an entirely secular explanation.

The Wikipedia article on deism makes for interesting reading on the subject.

Anyway, the bottom line is that what is commonly regarded as "creationism" today would almost certainly be viewed as superstitious nonsense by the founders.

yellowfin
11-11-2009, 7:17 PM
I suppose one weapon we have in this fight is informing the public about the previous cases of Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank to build a demand for an expected outcome, as to assert a sense that an unfavorable ruling is not acceptable and will not be accepted.

GaryV
11-11-2009, 8:21 PM
Read it again;" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Not "regarding", establishment. There can be no "Church of the United States of America". The English, under Henry VIII, created the Church of England and the founders didn't want that to happen here. A Nativity on the city hall lawn is not a law establishing a religion.

You take that word the wrong way, as an act of establishing, when it was originally meant as an object that is established. It wasn't simply to prevent the federal government from establishing its own religion, but also from interfering in the established religions of the states. The Founding Fathers were not opposed to official state religions, as many of them were from, and were leaders in, states that had them. So it doesn't merely bar the federal government from setting up an official religion, but in passing any law touching on religion.

GaryV
11-11-2009, 8:37 PM
Can someone please show me where in the US constitutione the words "seperation of church and state"

They dont. It does state the congress shall pass no law regarding or istituting a national religion. They cant make you a baptist, but that does not mean that our law was not based on Judeo Christian values. It is in now way a violation of the constitution for the court to display the 10 Comandments.

Telling you you will go to jail or get fined if you dont take weekly comunion, now that would be a violation of your rights.

Show me where it says "national religion". It doesn't. It just says religion, because it was meant to apply to religion in general. In fact, if that was not so, the next phrase, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." would make no sense. If no national religion was allowed, then how could there be a freedom to exercise it? The idea that it only deals with a national religion is a fiction that does not match the facts.

There's also no evidence whatsoever that our law is based on Judeo-Christian values, and certainly not in any way based on the 10 Commandments. It's based on English common law. The first 4 of the Commandments are strictly religious instructions that would be impositions of a religious practice on us if they were actual laws, and none of the others are laws in any civilian jurisdiction in the US. So posting the 10 Commandments in a court room (or any other government property), since they have absolutely no relation to US law, would be a purely religious exercise, which, unless there is a national or state religion (prohibited by the 1st and 14th Amendments), the government has no business doing.

tankerman
11-11-2009, 8:51 PM
That's what Injunctions are for - they stay imposition of the new laws until they can be shot down in Court...
..50 cal injunction....hi-cap injunction, safe hand list/drop test injunction, ability to accept injunction etc.....

RRangel
11-11-2009, 9:12 PM
Okay, once again my less than legally erudite mind has failed to assimilate the important facts.

If we do get incorporation in CA, what is the major benefit to us gunnies? What do we get that we don't have now, and what does it help us avoid in the future as far as unwanted gun laws?

I guess you can look at it this way. Wrap your head around the fact that California's gun laws are based on the premise of collective rights. After the incorporation of Heller that goes out the window. We'll have an individual right. Imagine what happens to our current laws then?

dustoff31
11-11-2009, 9:24 PM
The first 4 of the Commandments are strictly religious instructions that would be impositions of a religious practice on us if they were actual laws.

OK, I'll give you that.



and none of the others are laws in any civilian jurisdiction in the US.

Really? Murder, Theft, Perjury, and Adultry (somewhere, I'm sure) are not laws in any US jurisdiction? How about blue laws that still exist?

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 9:25 PM
Actually, we might. Many state constitutions with RKBAs have been watered down to sub-Heller standards with bad state-level interpretations.

I keep hearing Oregonians boast about their RKBA, but as Don Kates has researched, Oregon's may likely only protect the right to own muskets.

My God that is the funniest thing I've read in a good long while!

Gray Peterson
11-11-2009, 11:43 PM
I cited the Treaty of Tripoli in here and it seems to be getting ignored.

Why is it that people who are in favor of some civil rights of individuals are in some favoring of a "civil right of a government" to post the 10 commandants? I mean, I can hang the 10 Suggestions on the wall of my private residence (not that I would). That is my right. That is the free exercise of my religion (if I were a christian).

Yet somehow, some members our movement think that there is some "collective right" of the states to post religious texts because it's a matter of the state's freedom of expression. It's just as much bull**** constitutional theory as the 2nd amendment "collective rights" argument.

Jpach
11-12-2009, 12:39 AM
Tag. Good thread

GaryV
11-12-2009, 4:08 AM
OK, I'll give you that.

Really? Murder, Theft, Perjury, and Adultry (somewhere, I'm sure) are not laws in any US jurisdiction? How about blue laws that still exist?

I did mean to exclude theft, but was in a hurry and forgot it. However, none of the others are valid. The 10 Commandments don't say "Thou shalt not murder or commit perjury", they say kill or bear false witness. However, these things are only crimes in the US under certain circumstances, not in the general fashion prohibited in the 10Cs - and that is true in every culture, whether they have any connection to Christianity or not, so there is no connection between laws against murder and perjury, and the 10Cs' prohibition against killing and lying. That would be like claiming that our laws are based on Islam because they forbid drinking and we have laws against public drunkeness. In fact, our legal history is closer Islam than Christianity, since Islam forbids all the same secular things that Christianity does, but we actually adopted a constitutional amendment banning all alcohol. Of course, claiming that's where we got the idea is the same kind of post-hoc fiction as claiming we got our laws from Christianity - there is just a general idea in all human cultures that killing, stealing, and lying are bad in some way, and the minor overlap between our laws and the 10Cs is merely the same kind of coincidence. Killing and lying are not generally illegal in the US, unless done under certain circumstances. And adultery, as far as I know, is only illegal under the UCMJ, where it's highly controversial and seldom applied.

Blue laws do exist, though they are much less common than they were a generation ago, but I would also assert that they are blatantly unconstitutional, since they are clearly meant to force everyone to observe a particular religious practice specific to one religion. And where they have been defended, their supporters have claimed (i.e., lied, funny how Christians see no problem with doing that when pushing their agenda) that the laws were not religiously based. So either the Christians who keep these blue laws on the books are liars, or there is no connection between those laws and Christianity, or with the 4th Commandment.

Sgt Raven
11-12-2009, 7:42 AM
I did mean to exclude theft, but was in a hurry and forgot it. However, none of the others are valid. The 10 Commandments don't say "Thou shalt not murder or commit perjury", they say kill or bear false witness.......snip.........

You and your translation of the Old Testament is wrong. Where the King James version and others since reads not KILL, it should read not MURDER.

AEC1
11-12-2009, 8:13 AM
I suggest that alot of people here read the book 5000 Year leap. It very clearly documents the desire of most of our founders that our government was based on christian ideals. They left us a huge amount of freedom with the knowledge that we would excercise self control based upon our nations largely christian faith.

snobord99
11-12-2009, 10:25 AM
I suggest that alot of people here read the book 5000 Year leap. It very clearly documents the desire of most of our founders that our government was based on christian ideals. They left us a huge amount of freedom with the knowledge that we would excercise self control based upon our nations largely christian faith.

I have no idea if this is true, but I'll grant that it is and agree that most of the founders wanted our government to be based on christian ideals. My question now is, can you find any evidence that what the founders wanted was to force Christianity down our throats? I mean, I find it hard to believe that the founders would say "yea, it's ok for the government to endorse a particular religion" when the whole reason people came to the Americas from England in the first place was because of a government established religion. Of course, if your view is that the founders wouldn't approve of a state established religion unless it was a Christian religion, then we don't have much to debate over.

AEC1
11-12-2009, 10:49 AM
I didnt say they wanted it to be forced down anyones throats. I said that is what they founded our nation on and that they believed freedom would only work well if society had a strong held belief system that would keep them from doing bad things. (bad paraphrase).

The evidance of that fact is readily available by reading the minutes of the constituninal convention as well as the other writings of those that founded our nation.

Much like modern day politicians they all wrote many other things and the record of their convictions and values is readily available if you do some research.

WeThePeople
11-12-2009, 12:07 PM
I did not use the 10C as an example because of any personal religious beliefs.

The 1A prevents the establishment of a Federal religion. State-sponsored religion was deemed okay in some of the states back then. The 14A made it illegal to have state-sponsored religion. It took 150 years for the effect to trickle down to the Federal courts.

The states are now unable to prevent the Feds from deciding where to draw the line on individual rights. This will happen to 2A rights when/if incorporation happens. This would be a good thing if the Feds decide to be generous with our 2A rights.

Are any of you really optimistic about this? Anyone hear about Campaign Finance Reform? Aren't you worried about your 1A rights within 30 to 60 days of an election?

Right now, there are a majority of states that allow a happy switch (full auto) and/or suppressors. Do you think the right to FA will stay without strong state support of 2A?

I think incorporation is probably going to happen. Other states will not like the result. In the long run, we won't either.


One last thought for you incorporation experts. Right now, CA does not have any 2A clause in the CA Constitution. However, it uses the U.S. Bill of Rights. Therefore, since Heller confirmed that the 2A is an individual right, and we use the same 2A in CA, why do we need incorporation to give us anything? We should already have what incorporation would give us.

curtisfong
11-12-2009, 1:47 PM
since Heller confirmed that the 2A is an individual right, and we use the same 2A in CA, why do we need incorporation to give us anything?

I don't understand this question. Heller is incorporation.

Maybe you meant Nordyke?

bulgron
11-12-2009, 1:53 PM
One last thought for you incorporation experts. Right now, CA does not have any 2A clause in the CA Constitution. However, it uses the U.S. Bill of Rights. Therefore, since Heller confirmed that the 2A is an individual right, and we use the same 2A in CA, why do we need incorporation to give us anything? We should already have what incorporation would give us.

Because in order for that to be enforceable, the California state courts would have to uphold it. But the California state courts are outright hostile to gun rights, which means that they'll never agree with your interpretation of California State Constitution Article 3, Section 1.

Our only hope, therefore, is in Federal Court. And for us to take this to Federal Court, we need incorporation.

wildhawker
11-12-2009, 2:06 PM
WeThePeople,

Your question on incorporation has been addressed many times in recent memory. The answer can be found in a relatively simple search; try using Oaklander's Google custom search tool.

wildhawker
11-12-2009, 2:10 PM
Curtis, Heller does not incorporate 2A. For that, see McDonald.

curtisfong
11-12-2009, 2:12 PM
Curtis, Heller does not incorporate 2A. For that, see McDonald.

Err. Sorry. My mistake.

WeThePeople
11-12-2009, 2:29 PM
Because in order for that to be enforceable, the California state courts would have to uphold it. But the California state courts are outright hostile to gun rights, which means that they'll never agree with your interpretation of California State Constitution Article 3, Section 1.

Our only hope, therefore, is in Federal Court. And for us to take this to Federal Court, we need incorporation.

You're right about the CA courts and hostility. However, has a post-Heller CA court been asked to decide Article 3, Section 1 with respect to 2A? I have not seen one. I have no idea what the odds would be.

WeThePeople
11-12-2009, 2:39 PM
WeThePeople,

Your question on incorporation has been addressed many times in recent memory. The answer can be found in a relatively simple search; try using Oaklander's Google custom search tool.

Thanks. My point is that we have a possible CA solution that would give us incorporation benefits, without the probable side effects that will impact the current gun-friendly states.

Maybe this is Plan B if 2A incorporation fails in the Supreme Court.

nicki
11-12-2009, 2:52 PM
Guys,

The average American does not understand the issues involving incorporation, get off this board and politely just talk to non political type people.

Many people actually believe that the Federal Bill of Rights, all of them, already to apply to the states.

The best thing the MacDonald case does for us is show the American people that "We are not in Kansas Anymore".

It will be difficult to hide the facts from the General Public that the Federal bill of rights actually doesn't apply to the 50 states, only parts of it.

When I take the time and explain to the average person how things really work, they are shocked, typically jaws drop. They have holy **** momements.

I realize that this is a GUN RIGHTS forum, but we can't protect our gun rights without protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights.

My view is that if someone is willing to trample on the legitimate rights of any group, that they have no right to ***** and complain when their rights are being violated.

What are rights are debatable of course since many people intermix rights and government granted privileges and entitilements.

What will be interesting will be to see which groups file briefs in support of Chicago.

Chicago may find it has very few friends because anyone who files a brief for Chicago is going to have to accept Crunshiak and Slaughter house as good case law.

Perhaps we could get the KKK to file a friend of the court brief with Chicago.

To the Orginal Poster, sure we may have some bumps, but overall, we should be dancing in the streets.

I strongly believe we are going to win and it will be a historic win, we will come out and we are going to bury all victim disarmamament laws throughout the country.

The so called Machine gun issue won't be attacked directly, instead I could see "Commece Clause" lawsuits and possible lawsuits on tax issues as undermining the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 and parts of the FOPA 1986.

I see the BATF opening up the machinegun registry, but not for several years.
That being said, we will win big on everything else.

Until the American people accept the value that our government operates under the "Consent of the Governed" and that "The Governed" have the right to maintain the means to revoke their consent by force, it wil be a hard sell to get Americans to support widespread ownership of "Weapons of War".

We will win as long as we are pragmatic, willing to take calculated risks in the courts and that we go on offense.

Nicki

Nicki

WeThePeople
11-12-2009, 3:00 PM
Yup. Because a substantial fraction of those states' citizens have their rights violated (either due to lack of belief or belief in a conflicting religion) by seeing a gov't building with relgious propaganda.

There's a few good ideas in 10 Commandments. But many of us do indeed covet our neighbor's wife's or *** or wife's ***, we work on Sundays, and we also do not like to be told by a state building placard what gods to worship or how to worship them.

Of course this sounds like FUD, but since you brought up citizen rights...

Will courts rule that citizens have a right not be intimidated by an evil gun? Will gun ranges, shops, & shows have to close because someone does not want see an evil gun?

What about a picture of a gun? There go gun magazines.

NRA advertising? Gone.


Should we apply the same level of paranoia to 2A issues as you do to 1A issues.



BTW, in all seriousness, thanks for everything you and the other guys do on CG.

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 3:21 PM
Most of the founders were Diests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) that modern "Christians" would find heathens at best. Quoting wikipedia (but known to be accurate):
Individual deists varied in the set of critical and constructive elements for which they argued. Some deists rejected miracles and prophecies but still considered themselves Christians because they believed in what they felt to be the pure, original form of Christianity – that is, Christianity as it existed before it was corrupted by additions of such superstitions as miracles, prophecies, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Some deists rejected the claim of Jesus' divinity but continued to hold him in high regard as a moral teacher (see, e.g., Thomas Jefferson's famous Jefferson Bible and Matthew Tindal's 'Christianity as Old as the Creation'). Other, more radical deists rejected Christianity altogether and expressed hostility toward Christianity, which they regarded as pure superstition. In return, Christian writers often charged radical deists with atheism.

Hence Gray's point above about the Treaty of Tripoli - a part of the founding mythos of the United States Marine Corp.

-Gene

WeThePeople
11-12-2009, 3:40 PM
Guys,

The average American does not understand the issues involving incorporation, get off this board and politely just talk to non political type people.

Many people actually believe that the Federal Bill of Rights, all of them, already to apply to the states.

The best thing the MacDonald case does for us is show the American people that "We are not in Kansas Anymore".

It will be difficult to hide the facts from the General Public that the Federal bill of rights actually doesn't apply to the 50 states, only parts of it.

When I take the time and explain to the average person how things really work, they are shocked, typically jaws drop. They have holy **** momements.

I realize that this is a GUN RIGHTS forum, but we can't protect our gun rights without protecting the rest of the Bill of Rights.

My view is that if someone is willing to trample on the legitimate rights of any group, that they have no right to ***** and complain when their rights are being violated.

What are rights are debatable of course since many people intermix rights and government granted privileges and entitilements.

What will be interesting will be to see which groups file briefs in support of Chicago.

Chicago may find it has very few friends because anyone who files a brief for Chicago is going to have to accept Crunshiak and Slaughter house as good case law.

Perhaps we could get the KKK to file a friend of the court brief with Chicago.

To the Orginal Poster, sure we may have some bumps, but overall, we should be dancing in the streets.

I strongly believe we are going to win and it will be a historic win, we will come out and we are going to bury all victim disarmamament laws throughout the country.

The so called Machine gun issue won't be attacked directly, instead I could see "Commece Clause" lawsuits and possible lawsuits on tax issues as undermining the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 and parts of the FOPA 1986.

I see the BATF opening up the machinegun registry, but not for several years.
That being said, we will win big on everything else.

Until the American people accept the value that our government operates under the "Consent of the Governed" and that "The Governed" have the right to maintain the means to revoke their consent by force, it wil be a hard sell to get Americans to support widespread ownership of "Weapons of War".

We will win as long as we are pragmatic, willing to take calculated risks in the courts and that we go on offense.

Nicki

Nicki


Thanks for the dose of optimism. I'll go drink from my half-full glass now. :)

GuyW
11-12-2009, 6:36 PM
I cited the Treaty of Tripoli in here and it seems to be getting ignored.



Perhaps because it's an anomaly, given that the same folks funded missionary efforts to Indians, bought Bibles, appointed Congressional Chaplains, and inscribed the 10 Commandments on the Supreme Court building...
.

snobord99
11-12-2009, 6:44 PM
I didnt say they wanted it to be forced down anyones throats. I said that is what they founded our nation on and that they believed freedom would only work well if society had a strong held belief system that would keep them from doing bad things. (bad paraphrase).

The evidance of that fact is readily available by reading the minutes of the constituninal convention as well as the other writings of those that founded our nation.

Much like modern day politicians they all wrote many other things and the record of their convictions and values is readily available if you do some research.

Yea, forced down one's throat was a bit strong, I realized that when I wrote it but I was trying to make a point. The problem with allowing the 10 Commandments to be posted is that it basically says "this government believes in the religion from which the 10 Commandments is derived." I'll again use the bible analogy. If a government entity decided to make the New Testament available but not any other religious text, doesn't that basically establish an endorsement for Christianity?

snobord99
11-12-2009, 7:01 PM
I did not use the 10C as an example because of any personal religious beliefs.

The 1A prevents the establishment of a Federal religion. State-sponsored religion was deemed okay in some of the states back then. The 14A made it illegal to have state-sponsored religion. It took 150 years for the effect to trickle down to the Federal courts.

Yes. 14A made 1A also applicable to the states and limited the state's power to say "we are religion X and you should be too." That's only a problem if you think that a state should be allowed to endorse a particular religion.

The states are now unable to prevent the Feds from deciding where to draw the line on individual rights. This will happen to 2A rights when/if incorporation happens. This would be a good thing if the Feds decide to be generous with our 2A rights.

Yes, the states are "now" unable to prevent the Feds from deciding where to draw the line on individual rights because fed law trumps state law. Can you explain why incorporation suddenly allows state law to trump federal law?

Right now, there are a majority of states that allow a happy switch (full auto) and/or suppressors. Do you think the right to FA will stay without strong state support of 2A?

I think incorporation is probably going to happen. Other states will not like the result. In the long run, we won't either.

This can only be an issue if state laws somehow trump federal laws so I'll ask again, is there a reason why incorporation will suddenly make state law trump federal law?

Currently, federal law allows for "reasonable restrictions," but it doesn't say they MUST have these restrictions. The full auto/suppressor bans are a CA ban, few other states have the ban so why will CA's strict laws suddenly infect the rest of the nation?

One last thought for you incorporation experts. Right now, CA does not have any 2A clause in the CA Constitution. However, it uses the U.S. Bill of Rights. Therefore, since Heller confirmed that the 2A is an individual right, and we use the same 2A in CA, why do we need incorporation to give us anything? We should already have what incorporation would give us.

2A hasn't been incorporated to the states yet so the feds can't force CA to follow federal 2A/gun laws. CA uses the federal Bill of Rights, but that's by choice. If they're only using the constitution by choice, they can also choose to interpret it the way they want because it's an interpretation of the state constitution. It's no different from if CA chose a constitution different from the BoR; it was the state's choice, not the fed's choice.

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 8:38 PM
inscribed the 10 Commandments on the Supreme Court building...
.

Find a Federal inscription of the 10 commandments that dates prior to 1900 and you'll have a point.

-Gene

bulgron
11-12-2009, 8:44 PM
Find a Federal inscription of the 10 commandments that dates prior to 1900 and you'll have a point.

-Gene

lol. Nice catch.

The cornerstone was laid on October 13, 1932 and construction completed in 1935

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building

hoffmang
11-12-2009, 8:47 PM
lol. Nice catch.


There are a lot of sacred cows on the right that are modern doctrinal inventions. Since most of them just cause a firestorm, I'll skip them. However, these United States really were more free before 1900 if you weren't a disfavored minority...

-Gene

7x57
11-12-2009, 10:34 PM
There are a lot of sacred cows on the right that are modern doctrinal inventions.

Such as the pledge of allegiance? :TFH:

7x57

kcbrown
11-12-2009, 11:16 PM
There are a lot of sacred cows on the right that are modern doctrinal inventions. Since most of them just cause a firestorm, I'll skip them. However, these United States really were more free before 1900 if you weren't a disfavored minority...


I suspect that, for any time after the American Revolution, people (excluding disfavored minorities) were generally freer earlier than later.

Why? Because a law is, in the general case, a restriction on someone's freedom. As time goes on, the number of laws on the books grows, and therefore so does the number of restrictions on the freedom of the people. Sometimes there is a small "reset" as I think we'll see through 2A incorporation, but the general trend is still there. It takes a much larger reset, along the lines of the American Revolution, to regain large amounts of freedom. Many (perhaps even most) attempts at such a reset don't wind up working: most violent revolutions result in some sort of autocratic state, which generally represents little improvement for the average person (though it's a huge improvement for those with newfound power).

This is why I'm of the opinion that a properly set up government would have among its founding principles the notion of a strict limit on the number of laws that may be on the books at any one time. To accomplish that, I'd put something like the following in the Constitution:



All laws have an expiration not exceeding 8 years. If an expiration isn't specified to be any earlier, the law expires in 8 years. [This forces laws to be periodically revisited]
There shall be no more than 3000 unexpired federal laws in existence at any one time. [A few thousand should be enough to take care of all the problems the federal government needs to address at any given time]
No law shall address more than one specific subject (so no riders, etc., are allowed). [This is intended to prevent "container" laws, i.e. laws which in reality contain multiple laws to circumvent the purpose of the limited law principle]
Only a permanently recorded vote, in which the specific vote of each legislator is recorded, is allowed for passage of laws. [This is so that legislators can be held accountable for any laws they vote for which do not pass constitutional muster]
Congress shall not in any way delegate or cause to be delegated the task of making rules that are to be followed by the people. [This means no "administrations", such as the FDA, the FAA, etc., that make rules that the people are forced to follow. If Congress wants the people to follow a rule, Congress has to write it and put it into law themselves]
Any legislator who votes in favor of a law that is later ruled unconstitutional (which, of course, includes those that violate the above) shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years. The actual length would be determined by the Supreme Court. [This should keep the members of congress honest -- no more BS passing of blatantly unconstitutional laws, because their butts are now directly on the line]


The above rules would obviously be in the Constitution, and the Constitution would be written such that the above would be excluded from the amendment process. That is, any amendment that would have the effect of changing any of them would be automatically invalid, as would any amendment that would have the effect of changing the clause stipulating this exclusion. Some things are too important and too fundamental to be subject to revision of any kind, and I think this is one of them.

The end result should be that the laws that stay on the books are the ones considered to be most important. And they'll be forced to pass laws that they're sure are constitutional. :43:

GuyW
11-13-2009, 7:25 AM
Yes. 14A made 1A also applicable to the states and limited the state's power to say "we are religion X and you should be too." That's only a problem if you think that a state should be allowed to endorse a particular religion.


Setting aside the fact that "we are religion X and you should be too" is a gross mis-characterization, the situation is one that the Founders AND THE PEOPLE AND THE LEGISLATURES who ratified the Constitution endorsed, created, and appproved.

Similarly, the 2nd is only a problem if you think that individuals should be be allowed to have arms.

This forum is about RKBA, but the posturing here (by some) about strict Constitutional interpretation is a joke.
.

AEC1
11-13-2009, 10:06 AM
One last comment. It is funny that durring the conversation about the 10C, everyone assumes that it is a christian idea/doctrine. I hate to break the news to you but that is a Jewish custom primarily. Most christians though they hold the old testament and jewish law in high estem are not bound by it. Dont assume that those that defend the display of the 10C are Christian, For at their heart they are Hebrew.

7x57
11-13-2009, 10:35 AM
I hate to break the news to you but that is a Jewish custom primarily.


I hate to break the news to you, but that statement is only true for certain core theological choices. In fact the proper Christian handling if the Old Testament is a quite difficult issue and has multiple viable resolutions (as well as a whole host of non-viable ones, starting with Marcion's). I shall not dig into the tedious details on Calguns, however (for one thing, most of the Christians and all of the pagans would probably claw their eyes out).


Dont assume that those that defend the display of the 10C are Christian, For at their heart they are Hebrew.

Again, you are speaking for people who do not share your particular resolution to that core theological issues. In particular it is not true for a large number of Christians around the world, possibly even the majority (actually, certainly the majority if Catholic doctrine is what I think it is). Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant--they are within the bounds of reason and orthodoxy and cannot be dismissed so casually.

What is probably most relevant to the discussion is that the Puritans and many, probably the preponderance at the time of the revolution, were generally Reformed in theology. Jonathan Edwards, probably the greatest American Theologian, was thoroughly Reformed. And I believe that the standard Reformed position is still Calvin's--that the Ten Commandments as understood by Reformed Theology (which has a particular sophisticated interpretive schema for the Old Testament I don't happen to agree with, but which is neither irrational nor heterodox) are in fact binding.

7x57

jdberger
11-13-2009, 10:49 AM
these United States really were more free before 1900 if you weren't a disfavored minority...


That's a hell-of-an "IF".

:eek:

AEC1
11-13-2009, 11:58 AM
I hate to break the news to you, but that statement is only true for certain core theological choices. In fact the proper Christian handling if the Old Testament is a quite difficult issue and has multiple viable resolutions (as well as a whole host of non-viable ones, starting with Marcion's). I shall not dig into the tedious details on Calguns, however (for one thing, most of the Christians and all of the pagans would probably claw their eyes out).



Again, you are speaking for people who do not share your particular resolution to that core theological issues. In particular it is not true for a large number of Christians around the world, possibly even the majority (actually, certainly the majority if Catholic doctrine is what I think it is). Whether you or I agree with them is irrelevant--they are within the bounds of reason and orthodoxy and cannot be dismissed so casually.

What is probably most relevant to the discussion is that the Puritans and many, probably the preponderance at the time of the revolution, were generally Reformed in theology. Jonathan Edwards, probably the greatest American Theologian, was thoroughly Reformed. And I believe that the standard Reformed position is still Calvin's--that the Ten Commandments as understood by Reformed Theology (which has a particular sophisticated interpretive schema for the Old Testament I don't happen to agree with, but which is neither irrational nor heterodox) are in fact binding.

7x57


Ok so yes most christians do maintain the 10C. That was not my point. My point is that the 10C are originaly a hebrew doctrine. The fact that Christianity is an off shoot, or "completion" of the Hebrew faith, and that not all who support the 10C are Christians, in fact the hebrew belife maintains them as a core of their beliefs system, then do Christians.

snobord99
11-13-2009, 8:04 PM
Setting aside the fact that "we are religion X and you should be too" is a gross mis-characterization, the situation is one that the Founders AND THE PEOPLE AND THE LEGISLATURES who ratified the Constitution endorsed, created, and appproved.

Similarly, the 2nd is only a problem if you think that individuals should be be allowed to have arms.

This forum is about RKBA, but the posturing here (by some) about strict Constitutional interpretation is a joke.
.

So you think the founders would have given the thumbs up to a state sponsored religion?

hoffmang
11-13-2009, 9:29 PM
Such as the pledge of allegiance? :TFH:


Thanks for playing! The Pledge was modified in 1954 to add "under god."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegience#Addition_of_the_words_.22unde r_God.22

-Gene

hoffmang
11-13-2009, 9:32 PM
So you think the founders would have given the thumbs up to a state sponsored religion?

Actually yes, but at the time they wanted them to be sponsored at the state level. Massachusets was the last to end its state religion till 1833. However, most states either didn't establish or repealed establishment early on. It was pretty clearly assumed that the enforcement of the 1A on the states via the 14A was no practical problem as states had stopped establishing by 1868.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_of_religion#Disestablishment

-Gene

JackOfClubs
11-13-2009, 10:15 PM
Most of the founders were Diests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) that modern "Christians" would find heathens at best.

Actually, that is itself a bit of a 20th century myth. There were a few very influential deists among the founding fathers but the majority were Christian. By my count, of the original signers of the Declaration, 32 were Christian, 2 were Quakers (a branch of Christianity that does not believe in the sacraments), 8 were Deists, Freemasons or generally "Free Thinkers" and 14 are too obscure to tell. Even if you count the unknowns and Quakers among the Deists, that only adds up to 24 so the ratio is roughly 4:3 in favor of Christians.

I don't actually think this is relevant to the Constitutional question because they founding fathers definitely wanted freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitutions. Even before the 1st Amendment was penned, Article VI stated that "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

However, I do think it is important to get the facts straight. Deism and similar ideas were a decided minority opinion.

snobord99
11-13-2009, 10:24 PM
Actually yes, but at the time they wanted them to be sponsored at the state level. Massachusets was the last to end its state religion till 1833. However, most states either didn't establish or repealed establishment early on. It was pretty clearly assumed that the enforcement of the 1A on the states via the 14A was no practical problem as states had stopped establishing by 1868.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_of_religion#Disestablishment

-Gene

I think that's where we differ in terms of seeing what the founders would want. I agree that you're probably right that some (if not a lot) of the founders themselves wouldn't mind establishment at the state level; however, I believe that they wanted our Constitution to be flexible. To change with the times, so to speak. We did just that with every Amendment since the 10th. IMO, these days, it's more accepted that the government, whether state or federal, shouldn't be endorsing a particular religion and I think it's this change in our societal norm that the founders would support (which is why I say they wouldn't agree w/the establishment of a religion). This is not to say that they would like it on a personal level, but I think they'd accept that the trend is away from state established religions.

hoffmang
11-13-2009, 10:26 PM
However, I do think it is important to get the facts straight. Deism and similar ideas were a decided minority opinion.

Quantity does not equal quality. When Jefferson, Washington and Franklin are clearly Deists and Madison was at best cagey - but was clearly against allowing Christianity into the Virginia state government, I don't think you can accurately quantify the Deist position as a myth.

-Gene

JackOfClubs
11-13-2009, 10:59 PM
Quantity does not equal quality. When Jefferson, Washington and Franklin are clearly Deists and Madison was at best cagey - but was clearly against allowing Christianity into the Virginia state government, I don't think you can accurately quantify the Deist position as a myth.

-Gene

I never said quantity equals quality. I was responding to your quote that "Most of the founders were Diests", a clearly quantitative statement. And Washington was not a deist. Here is an excerpt of one of his most famous prayers:

"[M]ake me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber, but daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life."

None of the stuff in bold would ever be said by a deist.

wash
11-13-2009, 11:20 PM
What I can't understand is people who think the U.S. should be some kind of christian theocracy. They want us to be the christian version of Iran.

People today should really understand that it is bad to mix religion and politics.

Having the ten commandments on a court house or teaching "intelligent design" in a public school is a step in the wrong direction. Be happy that you can practice your religion of choice but don't try to foist it on someone else.

Those are some reasonable restrictions for religion. Look at England, they are coming close to a point where there is enough public support to get sharia law. The muslim faith is growing faster than any other so don't think that that can't happen here unless we make sure it doesn't.

hoffmang
11-13-2009, 11:49 PM
I never said quantity equals quality. I was responding to your quote that "Most of the founders were Diests", a clearly quantitative statement. And Washington was not a deist. Here is an excerpt of one of his most famous prayers:

"[M]ake me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber, but daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life."

None of the stuff in bold would ever be said by a deist.

The "George Washington Prayer Journal" doesn't (http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/08/washingtons-prayer-journal-a-fraud.html) appear to be an authentic work.

However, the cite on the following quotes is from Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended. The second quote is in a letter to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans:


With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts:he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning."

and:
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."

Here is Jefferson in his personal journal:

Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....

I know that Gouverneur Morris [principal drafter of the constitution], who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed him self to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did"

Since I can't find a single actual historian that believes in the authenticity of the Washington Prayer Journal, I don't think you've proven your point. I'll however add Ethan Allen. Again my point is that the leaders of the Founders were not Christian as that term is known today. Most of the Founders that folks who are supporters of the Second Amendment revere were not Christians.

-Gene

7x57
11-13-2009, 11:57 PM
Thanks for playing! The Pledge was modified in 1954 to add "under god."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegience#Addition_of_the_words_.22unde r_God.22

-Gene

Indeed, but I was referring to the fact that the pledge itself in any version is recent, and therefore I presume the idea of pledging to the flag at all. Sort of throwing you a slow pitch, as it were.

It's main virtue appears to be warm, fuzzy, impenetrable vagueness anyway. Something like most people's notion of God, in fact. The real reason "under God" was added? :eek:

7x57

7x57
11-14-2009, 12:18 AM
Ok so yes most christians do maintain the 10C. That was not my point. My point is that the 10C are originaly a hebrew doctrine. The fact that Christianity is an off shoot, or "completion" of the Hebrew faith, and that not all who support the 10C are Christians, in fact the hebrew belife maintains them as a core of their beliefs system, then do Christians.

I fail to parse that last glorious, sentence-like object (is it a fragment? a run-on? it may be both--grammar is your friend). But what I can make of it does not match your post. You said:

One last comment. It is funny that durring the conversation about the 10C, everyone assumes that it is a christian idea/doctrine. I hate to break the news to you but that is a Jewish custom primarily. Most christians though they hold the old testament and jewish law in high estem are not bound by it. Dont assume that those that defend the display of the 10C are Christian, For at their heart they are Hebrew.

which is quite clearly a criticism of a certain view of theology. In fact I happen to agree it's dubious theologically, but only because I happen to be the highly irritating sort of person who has a position on every highly technical and debatable theological point that few Christians can articulate or need to articulate. But your specific criticism is certainly wrong, as I said. The follow-up doesn't change that, though it does confuse the livin' daylights out of me.

And naturally "not all who support (um, support? observe or obey, maybe) the ten commandments are Christian." It's not a matter of debate, I don't think. You'd have to be really staggeringly obtuse not to know to whom they were given and remain authoritative Torah. Even a thoroughly Supercessionist theology would not lead to that error.

To take a complete left turn, it just occured to me that I've never noticed any Calgunner who identified himself as Jewish. :(

7x57

yellowfin
11-14-2009, 8:43 AM
I understand the worthy attention to the establishment clause, but in the last half century we've gone so overboard with it that we've almost entirely forced it to eclipse the free exercise bit that should be equal.

AEC1
11-14-2009, 9:13 AM
I fail to parse that last glorious, sentence-like object (is it a fragment? a run-on? it may be both--grammar is your friend). But what I can make of it does not match your post. You said:



which is quite clearly a criticism of a certain view of theology. In fact I happen to agree it's dubious theologically, but only because I happen to be the highly irritating sort of person who has a position on every highly technical and debatable theological point that few Christians can articulate or need to articulate. But your specific criticism is certainly wrong, as I said. The follow-up doesn't change that, though it does confuse the livin' daylights out of me.

And naturally "not all who support (um, support? observe or obey, maybe) the ten commandments are Christian." It's not a matter of debate, I don't think. You'd have to be really staggeringly obtuse not to know to whom they were given and remain authoritative Torah. Even a thoroughly Supercessionist theology would not lead to that error.

To take a complete left turn, it just occured to me that I've never noticed any Calgunner who identified himself as Jewish. :(

7x57

You are obviosly so much smarter then I am that I should be honored just to be posting on the same thread as you are.

I bow to your intelectual superiority, and to your...




who am I kidding, you sir are an arrogant one inded.

I was simply stating that the 10C are do not belong to the Christians alone, but were hebrew, long before Christ even walked the earth.

trashman
11-14-2009, 9:14 AM
To take a complete left turn, it just occured to me that I've never noticed any Calgunner who identified himself as Jewish. :(


Empirically speaking a quick reference to the custom search will reveal at least one self-identification.

However it would seem that I also don't remember anybody self-identifying as Presbyterian or of Scottish descendancy, either. Regarding self-identification I do wonder if it's because folks tend to gawk at, rather than participate in, Calguns discussions that touch on religion --- or whether I personally tend to avoid said discussions and so wouldn't notice because I'm not there...

Calguns has become a place of strong "feelings" which don't do much to contribute (as you recently noted elsewhere) to discussions of RKBA empiricism.

--Neill

AEC1
11-14-2009, 9:16 AM
Having the ten commandments on a court house or teaching "intelligent design" in a public school is a step in the wrong direction. Be happy that you can practice your religion of choice but don't try to foist it on someone else.



Some would say it takes more faith to believe that all that is in the universe and on earth just magically appeared after a big explosion, then to believe that someone designed and engineered it.

I surely would not believe that my house just appeared one night after an explosion. Common sense tells me that someone smarter then I designed it, and men willing to work harder then me built it...

AEC1
11-14-2009, 9:18 AM
Empirically speaking a quick reference to the custom search will reveal at least one self-identification.

However it would seem that I also don't remember anybody self-identifying as Presbyterian or of Scottish descendancy, either. Regarding self-identification I do wonder if it's because folks tend to gawk at, rather than participate in, Calguns discussions that touch on religion --- or whether I personally tend to avoid said discussions and so wouldn't notice because I'm not there...

Calguns has become a place of strong "feelings" which don't do much to contribute (as you recently noted elsewhere) to discussions of RKBA empiricism.

--Neill

Well said.

trashman
11-14-2009, 9:21 AM
Some would say it takes more faith to believe that all that is in the universe and on earth just magically appeared after a big explosion

That is not an accurate characterization of the Big Bang theory, nor does it reflect the enormous amount of quantitative and empirical thought and research than went into trying to understand the beginnings of the universe as we know it. It's a theory based on many, many building blocks of knowledge gained through observation and understanding of the natural world around us.

You would be surprised at the number of astronomers, astrophysicists, and other scientists (whose fields relate to cosmology) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology) that are religious. The two points of view are hardly incompatible (unless of course you simplify either viewpoint...).

--Neill

trashman
11-14-2009, 9:35 AM
However, I do think it is important to get the facts straight. Deism and similar ideas were a decided minority opinion.


However, the cite on the following quotes is from Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended.

I lived for a time, after moving to the Washington, D.C. area, in Alexandria, VA - just over the bridge from DC -- where Christ Church Episcopal (http://www.historicchristchurch.org/) is, and where the massive GW Masonic Memorial (http://www.gwmemorial.org/) is.

Most folks who haven't lived in the DC area can't appreciate the number of prominent Masonic (i.e., Deist) memorials there are. For a 'decided minority' there sure seems to have been a strong Deist presence genuflecting to George Washington as one of their own.

An interesting trivia point; Washington's funeral was held at the Old Presbyterian Meeting House (http://www.opmh.org/) (not far from Alan Gura's offices) -- which, still in use today, still architecturally shows the result of the (then Virginia Colony's state-established Church of England religion) suspicion of seditious Presbyterians.
(http://www.opmh.org/content/view/13/28/)
The early religious history of our nation is not nearly so pure as is often argued here.

--Neill

bulgron
11-14-2009, 10:12 AM
I understand the worthy attention to the establishment clause, but in the last half century we've gone so overboard with it that we've almost entirely forced it to eclipse the free exercise bit that should be equal.

While I am by no means a church-going man, I have to agree that there is quite a bit of truth in this statement.

Separation of Church and State does NOT mean drive all mention of religion from the public square.

GuyW
11-14-2009, 3:23 PM
To take a complete left turn, it just occured to me that I've never noticed any Calgunner who identified himself as Jewish. :(


I have, at least 3 or 4 (and of course there are others I have missed).

.

wash
11-14-2009, 5:17 PM
I surely would not believe that my house just appeared one night after an explosion. Common sense tells me that someone smarter then I designed it, and men willing to work harder then me built it...

But your wife was made from a spare rib?

AEC1
11-14-2009, 6:17 PM
But your wife was made from a spare rib?

Yep.

I aint that smart, and I have made a key from a nail. A fan belt from a pair of panty hoes, acelerator cable from a speaker wire, and a bed from a tree. I am sure a devine creator could make a woman from a rib...

bodger
11-14-2009, 6:50 PM
Yep.

I aint that smart, and I have made a key from a nail. A fan belt from a pair of panty hoes, acelerator cable from a speaker wire, and a bed from a tree. I am sure a devine creator could make a woman from a rib...


I wish I had a pair of panty hoes. :D

ImpliedConsent
11-15-2009, 11:35 AM
Since we're having a bit of a love-in for contrarian viewpoints in this thread, I'd just like to pop in and self-identify as a local atheist, in case the census is still ongoing. ;)

I like to think of our all-inclusive society as a blazing hot forge, where all of our different cultures, philosophies, work ethics, and experiences are melted together, spitting out an alloy that takes on the most effective attributes of each and effectively sets us apart from the rest of the world's monocultures (or near mono- anyway). Apart, and well ahead - because it means we remain flexible.

Sometimes, it seems that one group will get a leg up for a while, and pull us in one direction, but then the rest will tug in another. It's that interplay of conflict that keeps us growing, whether the conflict comes from sources internal, or international.

I'd hate to see us lose any of our society's best attributes (in my humble opinion), so I see it as necessary that we remain naturally varied to avoid developing such a rigid monoculture. Consequently, I see action which favors one group over another to be anti-American, and unwholesomely fascistic - and yes, that obviously includes any mechanisms to artificially increase diversity, or compensate for its lack.

I'm pretty sure we'll continue to have enough to bicker about that we'll naturally remain a varied society for a good, long while.


The point? I'm pretty sure the founders cooked up this batch of freedom with similar thoughts in mind - that's my opinion, and I'm pretty sure you'll see it's one reasonable interpretation of their craft. With that big picture in mind, it seems pretty easy to glean the onus behind keeping religion and the state apart, as well as the rest of the rules that describe how our country was intended to function.

Happy to hear your thoughts

JackOfClubs
11-16-2009, 9:37 PM
The "George Washington Prayer Journal" doesn't (http://www.positiveliberty.com/2008/08/washingtons-prayer-journal-a-fraud.html) appear to be an authentic work.

[...]

Since I can't find a single actual historian that believes in the authenticity of the Washington Prayer Journal, I don't think you've proven your point.
Fair enough, let's call it unproven. As I noted in my earlier post, it can be difficult to ascertain in some cases, but your quote of his pastor's complaint seems sufficiently to cast suspicion on Washington's Christianity.

Again my point is that the leaders of the Founders were not Christian as that term is known today. Most of the Founders that folks who are supporters of the Second Amendment revere were not Christians.

But as I also pointed out, a majority of the leaders were identifiably Christian. The main reason this is not better known is that since the 1920s the emphasis has been on the influence of deism. I don't know who Second Amendment supporters in general revere, but people like Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee and John Witherspoon are certainly worthy of admiration.

The main reason I think this topic is important at all is that, though in the majority, these Christian men did not impose a "theocracy" on the nation but were tolerant of dissenting opinions. That is a fact that Christians often don't get credit for.

AEC1
11-17-2009, 3:17 PM
I wish I had a pair of panty hoes. :D

It is a great story, it was the first date with a young lady, and we laughed that I was able to get into her panty hoes in less then an hour...

HowardW56
11-17-2009, 4:27 PM
There's a few good ideas in 10 Commandments. But many of us do indeed covet our neighbor's wife's or *** or wife's ***, we work on Sundays, and we also do not like to be told by a state building placard what gods to worship or how to worship them.

Makes me think..... My neighbor's wife has a hell of a ***...

wildhawker
11-17-2009, 7:22 PM
:useless: