While I, personally, would never send someone to MSNBC.com, I received an email today where MSNBC.com has a Live Vote currently that asked the following question:
"
from newsvine.com where you can comment about the Live Vote
Link
So what do you think? Should it be removed or is this argument stupid as some on the newsvine.com site say?
I figured one visit to this particular artticle of the site would not hurt much and instead could yield some interesting results. I recommend you try it just to see what people have voted so far.
Then I recommend you check out a link at the bottom
It's true the First Amendment of the Constitution intended to prevent only the federal government in the area of religion. Jefferson's writings confirmed this scope and pointed out that this power rests with the states. So, yes, it was completely permissable for the States to have their own State-established denominations and most did make express provision for the public "Protestant teaching of piety, religion and morality". (Protestant was later changed to Christian).And this is where the rub was for Catholics and so-called religious liberty secured by the Constitution. The Founders and Protestant state leaders did not want Catholics involved in state government becasue of their allegiance to the authority of the Pope. Besides New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maryland, the North Carolina Constitution prohibited those who denied "the truth of the Protestant religion" or those who held "religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State." Truth is Catholics were denied from holding public office, voting, and educating their children in the Catholic faith up until 1865 about the same time when slavery was abolished.
Okay.. I'm starting to get a little confused by what you're getting at. Catholics were supposed to have been discriminated against in some states up until 144 year ago... What does that have to do with whether or not our country as a whole had freedom of religion? The individual states were setup so that if like minded individuals wanted to live together with certain rules they could. Yes, in some cases the individual states did not allow everyone equal rights, but it's not just Catholics that had this problem. In 1870 the 15th Amendment was ratified, which provided specifically that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. It wasn't until 1920 when women finally won the vote throughout the nation. Sorry... I'm just really not getting your point here I guess.
Actually, they're talking about pre 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868.
Alderic,
so why are you sticking your tongue out then?
Well, because we hardly ever agree. You and I are pretty much as opposite as can be, so far as I've noticed.
My bad, I knew that, I so knew that. Duh, Alderic! Forgive me for my momentary ineptness.
Interesting that you should point this out.
Yes, until the Protestant Reformation England was a Catholic country. King Henry VIII was a Catholic and subject to the Pope until 1534 when he rebelled against the Catholic Chruch, left it, and made himself created head of his own new chruch, the Chruch of England by the Act of Royal Supremecy in 1534. So, he set up the Chruch of England independent of the CC and gave himself the divorce he wanted.
Henry was not going to be told even by the Pope to keep God's law and so he rebelled and his rebellion was the genesis of Anglicanism. It began in disobedience even as all the world's troubles began with the cry of Satan, "I will not serve". In 1559, the first year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, she renewed the Act of Royal Supremecy and set up the independent Chruch of England on a definitely Protestant basis and this has continued since under the "flag of liberty".
Regarding the highlighted part of your comment, I must ask...is there such a thing as absolute liberty...freedom of religion giving people the ability to believe what they want to believe? I always thought that liberty implies limited restriction. For example, if I am free from truth, I am subject to error or if free from virtue, then subject to vice...When science proved the world was round, it took our liberty away to believe it is flat!
Same thing with God's law...when He revealed His law, that revelation took away my liberty to do what that law forbade. His law took away the liberty of divorce and re-marriage. Yet, good ol' England gives her subjects the liberty to have it! But that is the liberty of the devil and refusal of submission to God. A person can be free from God and the servant of Satan or be free from Satan and the servant of God. We choose which liberty we will have. But as I see it, quite alot of England's liberty is liberty from the law of God. Protestantism gave men so-called liberty to think for themselves and people have interpreted it as license to believe whatever they want. Christian conditions are rapidly fading in England to the point its drifitng into irreligion or false religion.
And this is something that we here in the US of A should give serious thought and take to heart.
There is a saying that I believe sums up the freedom system that the US was founded on quite well. It says that one person's freedom ends where another's begins. Meaning that your freedoms shouldn't take away someone else's freedoms.
I'm going to borrow this to try and make a point.
Lula, you know when I'm always trying to debate religion/secularism with you and KFC. When I'm talking about non-religiouis people's right not to be religious, or that society is pluralistic. This is what i mean, to an extent.
My point is just that...we've been discussing this broad term of our country as a whole has freedom of religion, of religious belief and relgious practices...when in truth, it didn't apply to Catholics and not many people know that.
Back to the small Catholic colony of Maryland. Despite antaganism and armed invasion in Virgina, the Jesuit missionaries had protected and converted Indians, including intermarriage, and in 1641 the first Black man was elected to the Maryland General Assembly. But following the Revolution, and just as we discussed, the Church of England became the established Church in Maryland and Catholics were denied civil rights, the Holy Mass was illegal and execution was the punishment for making converts. One measure that sounds more Stalinist provided that a Catholic child who apostazied from the Faith had a right to all his parent's possessions!
Problem is that the Republic system of checks and balances in the division of powers that were so very important to the Founders is no more...it has long gone down the drain when the Courts started "legislating" from the bench.
Take the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision as a prime example...a majority of justices found somewhere a freedom to privacy (later called a woman's right to choose abortion) which deprives the unborn baby's freedom to be born, or his right to life.
I fear that we've arrived at a point that our Founders and brave miliary who fought and died for this freedom system would be filled with disdain for what America looks like today. We've made a mockery of God's laws, of guaranteeing religious freedom and of the Constitution itself.
It's their job, they're to inteperate and uphold laws, etc.
As per, the freedom of privacy - would you like the government in your private life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
Looks to me like they were doing their job and upheld the Constitution instead of changing it.
MOMMIE4LIFE
LULA POSTS:
MOMMIE4LIFE POSTS:
I disagree with your conclusion. The Supreme Court didn't change the Constitution, they somehow found a "right" to abortion which isn't there. Up until Roe v. Wade, we here in the US always recognized that killing the unborn baby in the womb was a crime and a particularly ugly one not a women's Constitutional "right to privacy".
The US Constitution is supposed to guarnatee right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not authorize killing in the womb under the right to privacy. There is nothing private about abortion. The decision to procure an abortion directly affects the life an an unborn baby...he dies. The Constitutional responsibility is to "promote the general welfare", and as a result, laws often restrict personal liberties becasue some personal decisions have a direct and negative, even deathly impact on others.
The devil is in the details and he is very cunning indeed. The big lie emphasizes the mother's right to a private life over society's responsibility to protect its weakest members. Abortion propaganda keeps us focused on relishing personal freedom rather than on creating a just social order under the laws of Almighty God who forbids us from killing another innocent human being.
Roe v. Wade made abortion on demand throughout all nine months (and with Obama even killing the baby if he survives a botched abortion) and for any reason (Doe v. Bolton) the law of the land. It's the worst kind of injustice imaginable; a tyranny imposed upon those who are surely the most victimized and horribly oppressed members of the human race..unborn babies held hostage in their mother's wombs.
In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"). McCorvey claimed her pregnancy was the result of rape.[4][5] The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas.
The district court ruled in McCorvey's favor on the merits, but declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the laws barring abortion.[6] The district court's decision was based upon the Ninth Amendment, and the court also relied upon a concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, regarding a right to use contraceptives. Few state laws proscribed contraceptives in 1965 when the Griswold case was decided, whereas abortion was widely proscribed by state laws in the early 1970s.[7]
Roe v. Wade ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal. Following a first round of arguments, Justice Harry Blackmun drafted a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.[8] Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell, Jr. joined the Supreme Court too late to hear the first round of arguments. Therefore, Chief Justice Warren Burger proposed that the case be reargued; this took place on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers stepped in to replace Wade. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order, but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.
Also from the wikipedia article mentioned above.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The above is what the Ninth Amendment states.
Now let's put two and two together and create a scenario. Now from how you posted that I will assume that you're male, so I will address you as such though your profile doesn't state (yes I looked, but just so as to attempt to not affend them). Let's say that your wife is home alone and while she is sleeping a man breaks into the house. Finding her asleep he then rapes her violently, against her wishes, and leaves her tied up to your bed for the police to find. Because your wife wasn't on birth control at that time for whatever reason she finds herself pregnant with the rapist's child. You're telling me that your wife HAS to have that child even if it's against her wishes, even if it's a daily reminder of something that she is trying her hardest to forget, even if it drives her to suicide later on in life? You're telling me that a child has more rights than the childs mother does just because it's unborn? If so then I think you should take a hard look at what the Bible says again, since that's where you're basing your principles. Society has changed a LOT since Biblical times and you need to take that into consideration, not to do so doesn't give the book justice.
Not that it's important, but I am a she.
And there is no doubt whatsoever that in most wrenching cases of rape, emotionally we might want to have the baby aborted. But emotions don't always lead to the right conclusion.
The reality is that while the rape is horrible, there is now an innocent life and two wrongs don't make a right. It makes sense to punish the rapist, but not the innocent baby in the womb with death.
In my view, killing an innocent baby in the womb to relieve the suffering of the woman can never be justified. The woman should carry the baby to term and give him up for adoption.
In the Holy Bible, the child of rape was allowed to live and the rapist was put to death...How far have we come from that? Penalties against rape are lenient and the product of the rape, the child in the womb gets the death penalty.
Obviously you're dead set in your ways. I don't think that a unborn baby's life should come before it's mother's. If there was a medical situation in where both were indangered and there was only one who could survive the mother is chosen first. If someone wants an abortion bad enough they'll get one whether it's regulated or not. Whether a woman gets an abortion or not they have to deal with it for the rest of their life. I would rather see the woman's mental health preserved than have her take her life or her child's life or both later on.
NEVER SHOULD WE REMOVE IN GOD WE TRUST
AND I WILL GLADLY DEFEND THAT
if you are looking for freedom of the mind
if your are looking for the truth
if you see the very fault of our inner governmental circle
if you believe you are important and you matter
if you are unhappy at what is
if you believe we can make a better tomarrow
then now go to youtube.com
go to jdcriveau check out those videos
support him pass them on to others
join jd to make the united states the country it should be
remember the party system in congress brought us to this point
it is now our time to make it a free governmential body
it is now our time to give all congress a term limit
vote in indepentents not party people
REMEMBER WE ARE FREE WILL PEOPLE AND WE DO NOT NEED A POLITICAL PARTY
TO TELL US HOW TO THINK AND WHAT WE ARE
SO GO TO YOUTUBE.COM CHECKOUT jdcriveau
you deside where you stand and if you agree with jdcriveau then support jd
pass jd on to others
help jd free this nation and in turn we will be an example for the rest
thank you
jd
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
