|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 18, 2015 1:46:04 GMT
Bevo, you really think the intention of the first amendment was that government could judge your sincerity, and if government thought you weren't sincere, could deny you first amendment rights? Do you know another way to do it? I don't. That wasn't the question. Do you think the intention of the founding fathers was for government to be able to question the sincerity of your religious beliefs before offering you protection to practice your religion? Do you think it was the intention of the founding fathers to allow government to decide which religions were legitimate?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 18, 2015 2:48:20 GMT
Do you know another way to do it? I don't. That wasn't the question. Do you think the intention of the founding fathers was for government to be able to question the sincerity of your religious beliefs before offering you protection to practice your religion? Do you think it was the intention of the founding fathers to allow government to decide which religions were legitimate? I think it was the intention of our founders that people should, within reason, be able to practice the tenets of their religion. I think it was their intention to establish a Congress and Court system that would figure out a practical way to make this happen. and, I think they more or less succeeded. They would never have expected that any Christian person wouod be forced to sign off on and sanction a gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 18, 2015 2:55:22 GMT
“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.
[Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3
Seems clear to me, they understood this was going to be a difficult area to define.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 18, 2015 3:49:48 GMT
“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832]” ― James Madison, Letters and Other Writings of James Madison Volume 3 Seems clear to me, they understood this was going to be a difficult area to define. That letter does not answer my question(I do agree with what it says: uphold public order and personal freedom over religious freedom). Nothing in that letter says whether the government should judge whether a person's beliefs are sincere, or whether a religion is legitimate. I'll ask again: Was the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide what religions are legitimate? Was it the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide whether an individual has a sincerely held belief?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 18, 2015 3:59:53 GMT
The "within reason" is the part I don't understand. I'll ask for Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday off to watch football because football is my religion. If my government employer doesn't accept this, they are violating my first amendment right. Is it government's decision to decide whether my religion is legitimate? If they can decide that my football religion is illegitimate, couldn't they decide that your Christian religion is illegitimate as well? If government can decide whether I sincerely hold my belief in football religion, couldn't they also decided that your Christian religion is not sincere? P.S. The quote button is at the top of the post you want to reply to. Before it was at the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 18, 2015 13:24:28 GMT
That letter does not answer my question(I do agree with what it says: uphold public order and personal freedom over religious freedom). Nothing in that letter says whether the government should judge whether a person's beliefs are sincere, or whether a religion is legitimate. I'll ask again: Was the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide what religions are legitimate? Was it the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide whether an individual has a sincerely held belief?
I've already answered your question, twice. Yes. I think they understood that government was going to have to be the arbiter of disputes that naturally arise between religious rights and the public order. "Sincerity of belief" is not the only deciding factor. But, it surely can be a part of the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 18, 2015 13:34:09 GMT
The "within reason" is the part I don't understand. I'll ask for Thursday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday off to watch football because football is my religion. If my government employer doesn't accept this, they are violating my first amendment right. Is it government's decision to decide whether my religion is legitimate? If they can decide that my football religion is illegitimate, couldn't they decide that your Christian religion is illegitimate as well? If government can decide whether I sincerely hold my belief in football religion, couldn't they also decided that your Christian religion is not sincere? P.S. The quote button is at the top of the post you want to reply to. Before it was at the bottom.
Yes... the government can decide whether or not my Christian religion is sincere. They're more or less doing that now, with gay marriage. The government CAN do it. And the people of faith then have to decide what, if anything, they want to do about it. Our government is supposed to be empowered by the consent of the governed. Our Founding Fathers wisely knew, it's not a good thing to have government routinely putting large numbers of the governed in a position of having to choose between what the government says, and what their God says.
Go ahead, give your Football Religion a try. Let me know how it works out for you. I have a feeling you'll be unemployed, and be wholly unsuccessful in your legal challenge. But, I'll be pulling for you. And, I'll be one of the first new followers if you succeed. :-)
PS> I KNOW where the Quote button is.... My issue is, I don't like repeating multiple quotes in each response... and, I like being able to split up a long quote into the several parts.... so, I can reply to each point, as they are made. With this formatting, that seems very difficult to do. Plus, the color difference between the QUOTE field, and the REPLY is so slight, it's difficult for me to tell where the quote ends, and the reply begins.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 19, 2015 1:01:51 GMT
That letter does not answer my question(I do agree with what it says: uphold public order and personal freedom over religious freedom). Nothing in that letter says whether the government should judge whether a person's beliefs are sincere, or whether a religion is legitimate. I'll ask again: Was the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide what religions are legitimate? Was it the intention of the founding fathers that the government decide whether an individual has a sincerely held belief?
I've already answered your question, twice. Yes. I think they understood that government was going to have to be the arbiter of disputes that naturally arise between religious rights and the public order. "Sincerity of belief" is not the only deciding factor. But, it surely can be a part of the decision.
You really think the founding fathers wanted government to decide which religions were legitimate? The answer is obviously no. They clearly wanted government to have nothing to do with religion.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 19, 2015 3:51:11 GMT
The answer is obviously no. They clearly wanted government to have nothing to do with religion.
Well, it's only obvious to you.
Madison clearly foresaw that conflict would arise. I'm certain he expected that the various functions of government he helped create would eventually have to derive practical solutions.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 19, 2015 7:24:07 GMT
The answer is obviously no. They clearly wanted government to have nothing to do with religion.
Well, it's only obvious to you.
Madison clearly foresaw that conflict would arise. I'm certain he expected that the various functions of government he helped create would eventually have to derive practical solutions.
Read his quote. He saw potential conflict that someone practicing their religion may disrupt public order, or infringe the rights of others. I have no idea how you interpret his quote as saying government should be able to determine which religions are legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 19, 2015 14:16:00 GMT
Read it? Really? That's your suggestion? You think I just randomly picked a Madison quote without reading it?
Here's the deal, AuFan: In addition to their informed brilliance, our Founders were practical men. They would give your Football Religion the rightful scorn it deserves. I firmly believe they knew idiots and scoundrels would attempt to use First Amendment protections as a shield. And, they were fully aware that the various branches of government would sort things out.
They, were serious people.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 19, 2015 15:50:20 GMT
Pretty clear. Government is completely removed from religion, unless it is to preserve public order, or said religion infringes on the rights of others.
I do not understand how you interpret this as government can pick and choose which religions are legit, and decide whether you are sincere in your belief. That is well outside the scope and intention of the first amendment.
Madison might laugh at my football religion, but wouldn't interpret it as something that would disrupt public order or infringe on others rights. And if he knew the role of government was to decide if my belief in football religion was sincere, decide if it was a legit religion, and then decide whether government should give me special treatment, he would cringe. This is not government abstinence.
My point is that we've interpreted the first amendment well beyond the scope of the founder's intentions. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But the idea that we must strictly adhere to the presumed intentions of the founders is ridiculous and impractical.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 19, 2015 18:05:23 GMT
Pretty clear. Government is completely removed from religion, unless it is to preserve public order, or said religion infringes on the rights of others. I do not understand how you interpret this as government can pick and choose which religions are legit, and decide whether you are sincere in your belief. That is well outside the scope and intention of the first amendment. Madison might laugh at my football religion, but wouldn't interpret it as something that would disrupt public order or infringe on others rights. And if he knew the role of government was to decide if my belief in football religion was sincere, decide if it was a legit religion, and then decide whether government should give me special treatment, he would cringe. This is not government abstinence. My point is that we've interpreted the first amendment well beyond the scope of the founder's intentions. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But the idea that we must strictly adhere to the presumed intentions of the founders is ridiculous and impractical. You would be very free to adhere to your football religion, without interference from the government. It wouldn't become an issue at all, until your employer fired you for not coming to work. If you tried to sue, claiming a religious exemption, the court would laugh at you and throw your case out. That would be preserving public order.
I wish you'd be more serious about this. The courts do treat religious claims seriously.... for the most part. But, they don't give carte blanche to any whacko claim.
I don't agree with your belief that we've exceeded the intent of the first amendment. Except, perhaps in the current attempt to eliminate any and all signs of religion from our government. Our founders started every session of Congress with a prayer. I don't think they saw any problem with that. For constitutional issues, I do believe the original intent, in as much as it is known, SHOULD be followed. Otherwise, the law can be changed wildly on the whim a handful of judges. That's the directions we're heading now, and it's NOT healthy. There are mechanisms provided to amend the constitution. Contrary to popular opinion, it's NOT impossible. But, it does require a fairly significant consensus.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 22, 2015 14:43:01 GMT
The Supreme Court is the final decision maker as far as the law goes. I think being critical of their decisions is a healthy thing for our republic.
There are some things that even the Supreme Court cannot dictate to people of faith.
In this country, we have always tried to allow a happy medium between State and Religious edicts. This one, is EASY to fix, and I'm sure it will be.
That said, from a legal standpoint. I don't really understand: What happens when a law is struck down as unconstitutional? Is the entire law not invalid? How do they pick one clause or another out of a larger body of piece of legislation. From the beginning, Davis refused to issues ANY marriage licenses... not just licenses to gay couples. What Ky statute gave her the legal authority to issue ANY, if the law giving her the authority was declared invalid? It does seem to be unclear... at least, to the non-lawyer lay person.
Sorry, I kind of dropped out of this thread and didn't respond. The truth is, a lot of this is unclear even to lawyers. This stuff will be determined on a case by case basis. Sometimes the entire law is struck down, sometimes a portion. Depends on the judges' ruling. In this instance, it appears that the Supreme Court has established an affirmative right of gay marriage. Now they're not going to go through, line by line, the laws of every state and alter them. That's going to be left to other people. In this instance, it looks like Kentucky law didn't provide any mechanism for gay marriage. It was clearly written with the assumption that the people getting married would be a man and a woman. Now obviously no magical Supreme Court Fairy is going to come along and sprinkle fairy dust (huh huh, fairy, gay marriage) on the statutes and change everything. My guess is that that language is simply going to be treated as though it were gender neutral. Kentucky wasn't a part of Obergefell v. Hodges, the gay marriage decision. That was a case out of Ohio, I believe. Now the decision still affects Kentucky, obviously. And federal courts aren't going to just wait around for states to create gay marriage friendly laws. Suppose the Kentucky Legislature never got around to changing those laws. Kim Davis says in 2015, "oh I can't issue these marriage licenses because the language isn't gender neutral, the legislature will have to fix that when they reconvene next year." And then in 2016 they don't fix it. And then she just keeps doing the same thing. Now, where we are now isn't a good position for anyone to be in. I think Kim Davis had a rational argument for not issuing marriage licenses. It wasn't gonna win, but arguing that the statute says you've got to apply for the license in the woman's county of residence makes things uncertain in cases where there isn't a woman, or there are two women, that's a rational argument. Now she didn't actually make that argument until she was in jail -- she was really clear from the beginning that this was about her religious objection to gay marriage and that's it. She's not gonna get a do-over, the judge isn't required to pretend that her last minute argument was why she was really doing this. But obviously the statutes need to be rewritten so that all the mundane, normal details of marriage can be resolved.
|
|
hoya
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by hoya on Sept 22, 2015 14:59:04 GMT
Pretty clear. Government is completely removed from religion, unless it is to preserve public order, or said religion infringes on the rights of others. I do not understand how you interpret this as government can pick and choose which religions are legit, and decide whether you are sincere in your belief. That is well outside the scope and intention of the first amendment. Madison might laugh at my football religion, but wouldn't interpret it as something that would disrupt public order or infringe on others rights. And if he knew the role of government was to decide if my belief in football religion was sincere, decide if it was a legit religion, and then decide whether government should give me special treatment, he would cringe. This is not government abstinence. My point is that we've interpreted the first amendment well beyond the scope of the founder's intentions. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong. But the idea that we must strictly adhere to the presumed intentions of the founders is ridiculous and impractical. You would be very free to adhere to your football religion, without interference from the government. It wouldn't become an issue at all, until your employer fired you for not coming to work. If you tried to sue, claiming a religious exemption, the court would laugh at you and throw your case out. That would be preserving public order.
I wish you'd be more serious about this. The courts do treat religious claims seriously.... for the most part. But, they don't give carte blanche to any whacko claim.
I don't agree with your belief that we've exceeded the intent of the first amendment. Except, perhaps in the current attempt to eliminate any and all signs of religion from our government. Our founders started every session of Congress with a prayer. I don't think they saw any problem with that. For constitutional issues, I do believe the original intent, in as much as it is known, SHOULD be followed. Otherwise, the law can be changed wildly on the whim a handful of judges. That's the directions we're heading now, and it's NOT healthy. There are mechanisms provided to amend the constitution. Contrary to popular opinion, it's NOT impossible. But, it does require a fairly significant consensus.
I don't think there's any way to know exactly what the Founders would have thought. In some of these cases, we're projecting our own ideas 200 years back in time and assigning beliefs to men who would have had no concept of what we are dealing with today. George Washington never had to deal with Scientology. The best we can do is to try to follow the principles set forth in the Constitution, as we understand them today. Even if someone is being perfectly honest, trying to interpret what the Founders would have thought on an issue, it's still just that person's ideas of who those men were. There's no guarantee that they are correct in their beliefs. Thomas Jefferson probably wouldn't have been cool with gay marriage, but hell maybe he'd have given it a thumbs up. The law can be changed wildly on the whims of judges, and I do not particularly like that. I disagree with a lot of the things that the Supreme Court has done over the years, particularly in regards to the 4th Amendment. But having judges just mouth some sort of respect for the Framers and say "this is what they would have wanted" doesn't make it any more legitimate.
|
|