ID, you sure get defensive at times....

---

#resist

No one size fits all Faith like in England. The Pilgrims came here for the right to worship freely.

What has this event in 1620, got to do with the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the ammendments?

By the time of US Independence 1776, UK religious freedom was allowed, as defined in the Act of Toleration enacted on 24 May 1689.

Look...

You don't get to tell me what I can and can't do.

You don't get to tell me if I can or can't change the subject.

You don't get to tell me if I answered or not a question.

This thread was silent for more then a month.

Since when do you speak for Gary?

I answered the question. If your not intellectually equipped, best off you do stay off the thread. Just sayin...

You can red x the post and hide behind some moderators skirt like the rest or perhaps your one of them?

Intellectual cowardice...

ID, so you think Gary is unworthy of an answer? He is the one who asked the question.

---

ID, you were asked about the "final arbitrator of law", not who makes the law. Please answer the question and not change the subject.

I did not change the subject. I correctly answered the question.

You are either being argumenative or you have no understanding about your own question and my answer. Pick one.

ID, you were asked about the "final arbitrator of law", not who makes the law. Please answer the question and not change the subject.

---

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Errors? The Bill of Rights was for the personal rights of the one.

I have and did post about this subject BEFORE this thread opened. The first amendment was placed in the Constitution to ensure that we had the freedom to worship as we see fit. No one size fits all Faith like in England. The Pilgrims came here for the right to worship freely.

In this first amendment we see that there would be no federal Faith. As I have said many states had their own state Faith like Maryland for example it was Catholic.

No, SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law. We have the amendment process.

Perhaps, as we've seen, he believes his opinions to be fact supported by his selective interpretation of texts. He will persist in that and whenever challenged will repeat his position or move off to another topic as if in response (in this he is quite consistent). An example of this is his 'response' to my originating post in the thread. I felt perhaps he simply missed the point and so restated it in response to his post -- his response demonstrated yet again that he missed the point. This is not a surprise to me -- sort of an FM versus AM thing I guess.


His response to those who disagree is to regale them with how wrong they are - often because he says they are wrong.

We could, I suppose simply 'walk around' the mess on the floor, but I have this inclination to clean it up.

One thing I will readily accord to him -- he has his beliefs and they are core and essential to him. For that I respect him.

IMO ID is more like a tyke who has to throw a temper tantrum until he is appeased. I think there is a word for that, perhaps it is troll? Perhaps we should both put him on ignore and get on with adult discussion of serious topics?

And for this statement and others like this--I thank you.

Perhaps, as we've seen, he believes his opinions to be fact supported by his selective interpretation of texts. He will persist in that and whenever challenged will repeat his position or move off to another topic as if in response (in this he is quite consistent). An example of this is his 'response' to my originating post in the thread. I felt perhaps he simply missed the point and so restated it in response to his post -- his response demonstrated yet again that he missed the point. This is not a surprise to me -- sort of an FM versus AM thing I guess.


His response to those who disagree is to regale them with how wrong they are - often because he says they are wrong.

We could, I suppose simply 'walk around' the mess on the floor, but I have this inclination to clean it up.

One thing I will readily accord to him -- he has his beliefs and they are core and essential to him. For that I respect him.

IMO ID is more like a tyke who has to throw a temper tantrum until he is appeased. I think there is a word for that, perhaps it is troll? Perhaps we should both put him on ignore and get on with adult discussion of serious topics?

Gary you are being rational again.

---

Gary, IMO ID thrashes and flails around much like a freshly caught salmon. Lots of movement and getting nowhere.

Were it so, because soon the salmon would be consumed. IMO ID is more like a tyke who has to throw a temper tantrum until he is appeased. I think there is a word for that, perhaps it is troll? Perhaps we should both put him on ignore and get on with adult discussion of serious topics?

---

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Gary, how dare you use history and deductive logic on ID?

You appear to have a very low threshold in deductive logic.

betreger, it appears as if you are correct. ID appears to be incapable of even simple deductive reasoning. I believe there is a pejorative name for such a person.

It now appears that he wishes to teach a class on debate techniques and not discuss the issue. If this was a meeting covered by Robert's Rules, the chair would rule him out of order and impose sanctions for such conduct. Alas this forum is not covered by such a rule so we must put up with this.

Gary, IMO ID thrashes and flails around much like a freshly caught salmon. Lots of movement and getting nowhere.

---

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Gary, how dare you use history and deductive logic on ID?

You appear to have a very low threshold in deductive logic.

betreger, it appears as if you are correct. ID appears to be incapable of even simple deductive reasoning. I believe there is a pejorative name for such a person.

It now appears that he wishes to teach a class on debate techniques and not discuss the issue. If this was a meeting covered by Robert's Rules, the chair would rule him out of order and impose sanctions for such conduct. Alas this forum is not covered by such a rule so we must put up with this.

---

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Gary, how dare you use history and deductive logic on ID?

You appear to have a very low threshold in deductive logic.

It would help if you both knew the subject matter better...

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document.

I was bantered, and accepted, first ten and then the 11th added. You did not ask a question you made a statement.

Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments.

Once again you make a statement. Freedom to Worship. Just done that. You appear to be a tad bit behind...

Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue?

You mean Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers? The answer is yes, they both address the issue. I have read them both. It would do me no good not to look at the other side of the issue. However, you will not find your [and others "Health Care"] argument in either papers. Both side were deeply in a Faith of some sort. The issue is what it is. Government is not a blank check...

How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment.

A statement...

How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment?

What about it? It was bantered and accepted, the Federalist view. All 50 states thereafter also accepted it.

What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Hell no, SCOTUS is not the final arbitrator of law! We are!

"Hamilton" wrote:

"Here Sir, The People Govern!"

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

Gary, how dare you use history and deductive logic on ID?

---

Whatever the faith of the founders, it was reputed by the states and rather rapidly with the adoption of the Bill of Rights which was seen as necessary to fix serious errors in the original document. Perhaps you should address the first of those amendments. Does the Federalist or Anti Federalist address this issue? How about the debate of the persons drafting this amendment. How about the debate in the legislatures adopting or rejecting this amendment? What does SCOTUS have to say about this? Since you state you are for the rule of law, isn't SCOTUS the final arbitrator of law?

---

ID, I suspect that if it were possible, you and Jefferson would have a very spirited discussion on this subject.

We would. {smile} Jefferson did not always get his way with things...

ID as others have so effectively pointed out (though never to your satisfaction of course), what for you is 'a point of fact' is in fact, your *opinion*. I respect your right to hold forth regarding your opinion. Your misrepresentation of that opinion as if it was fact is consistent with your faith and world view, but it is a confusion on your part which I realize is a concrete and absolute state of mind for you.

I suspect you've not read the referenced article nor for that matter my replies (why should you as they don't conform with your concrete and absolute view of things).

To repeat, on the off chance you mind read this reply, the issue for that particular legislator was not one of separation of church and state -- she believes firmly they should be fully intermingled -- the issue was that the legislation proposed did not limit the intermingling to *her* faith alone and this was something with which she could not abide.

I regularly attend my synagogue (three times weekly) perhaps more than most (or perhaps all) the other participants on the political message board attend their church/synagogue/mosque/temple of choice. So when I get preached to by folks of other faiths who insist their view is the only true and absolute one, my ability to resist, firm in my own faith and observance is quite solid.

But, it isn't my opinion. It is the opinion of the founders/framers. There is no misrepresentation of the fact. Example...

I did read and I did reply. In the Federal Government for good morals and ethics to work correctly one must take their own brand of Faith with them to the Halls of Congress. I have no problem with your Jewish Faith, none. Im grateful to the Jewish Nation for the Law, and many other things for that matter. I would expect you if elected to take your Faith with you. As I would my own if elected. But I would object to a one Faith fits all from the Federal Government. This argument was bantered in the Federalist Papers. The Contract called the Constitution accepted by all Fifty States.

In a state, if it is voted on and accepted by the voters, a state Faith can be declared, much like a state bird or flag. The fact of this, or for that matter the lack of this, cannot in any way stop or deter you from your Jewish Faith. A state Constitution cannot be out of line with the Federal Constitution. A state Constitution can be more laxed or more stringent the the Federal Constitution but the letter of the law [Federal] in this case is that it cannot be a Federal Faith, one fits all kinda thing, and a state cannot stop you from Worshipping where and when you wish.

ID as others have so effectively pointed out (though never to your satisfaction of course), what for you is 'a point of fact' is in fact, your *opinion*. I respect your right to hold forth regarding your opinion. Your misrepresentation of that opinion as if it was fact is consistent with your faith and world view, but it is a confusion on your part which I realize is a concrete and absolute state of mind for you.

I suspect you've not read the referenced article nor for that matter my replies (why should you as they don't conform with your concrete and absolute view of things).

To repeat, on the off chance you mind read this reply, the issue for that particular legislator was not one of separation of church and state -- she believes firmly they should be fully intermingled -- the issue was that the legislation proposed did not limit the intermingling to *her* faith alone and this was something with which she could not abide.

I regularly attend my synagogue (three times weekly) perhaps more than most (or perhaps all) the other participants on the political message board attend their church/synagogue/mosque/temple of choice. So when I get preached to by folks of other faiths who insist their view is the only true and absolute one, my ability to resist, firm in my own faith and observance is quite solid.