The Red and Black

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

By the way this prohibition is not constitutionally (federal) applied to the States. Each State has the reserved the power to do as they pleased in this case. Read the u.S. Constitution carefully, and don't forget the 10th Amendment.

*sigh*

The 14th Amendment applies the first ten (including the first) to the states. You might also re-read the tenth Amendment more carefully yourself.

Originally posted by

Daniel Brettschneider

Melissa, not only do we strive as a nation to keep church and state separate, but it is state far more explicitly in our own Georgia State Constitution:

No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.

--State of Georgia Constitution
Article 1. Bill of Rights
Section II, Paragraph VII.

Further, to those advocating that closing down this ceremony would violate Sonny's right to freedom of religion:

Sonny Perdue may do whatever he wishes, religiously, as Sonny Perdue. In his capacity of Governor of Georgia, though, he is distinctly limited in his actions -- and this was a ceremony conducted by the offices of the Governor of the State of Georgia.

In other words, Sonny Perdue can have a Christmas tree in his home and a nativity scene outside. Governor Perdue, however, cannot lead Georgia's Congress in a Christmas ceremony.

Listen up,
As long as Sonny Perdue is governor of Georgia, he is governor of George. A ridiculus statement, right? But even in his own home, he is still governor of Georgia. Or can you tell me when he is not? Having a prayer vigil led by Sonny on the capital steps is NOT state support of religion, even if every senator and representiative and judge and magistrate of the entire State of Georgia is there. Even elected and appointed officials of the state are free to practice their own religion, and anywhere they please except in your home. The state is not paying for this. Sonny is on a salary.

Originally posted by

reality

I am truly amazed that intelligent people think it is a good idea than an elected official is "Praying" for rain on the publics dime and time. If he wants to pray for rain do it in private and not sending out press releases to he can do it infront of cameras. If he really believes the magic man in the sky is gonna give him rain if he "prays" for it then he is an idiot! If you believe that then you have to believe that the magic man in the sky is keeping rain from us for some reason! Hell, why not dispatch an investigative team from the GBI to pursue GOD's motive for withholding water from us.

I wish the religious nuts that praise this action and demonize science would actually adhere to thier beliefs instead of being such hypocrites! Follow your religious beliefs completely - PLEASE! I propose you abandon all things related to science and resonable thinking. The science of stem cells is the same science of antibiotics and hospitals. So, if you think it's that evil avoid all science. Then, when you die, there will be less of a burden on our resources and the drought wouldn't be that bad for us! Come on! Stop being hypocrites you ignorant schmucks!

I don't think science and Christianity are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, to be a true Christian, you have to believe that any concrete scientific evidence is valid. I don't dispute scientific evidence because I believe God created science and anything found to be true will not contradict my Bible. If I believe something is true, other true things shouldn't contradict it. That being said, I find it funny that after praying it actually rained. The Red and Black ran a cartoon about it; the cartoon intimated that since rain was part of the water cycle, God had nothing to do with it. Science and God aren't mutually exclusive though. God wrote the rules of science. He doesn't have to break the rules of nature eery time to do what He wants. Why is it so hard to believe that God doesn't always work against scientific processes. On the contrary, most of the time He works through them.

Originally posted by

AthensCitizen

So please do not use this forum to spit on the faith of others.

You'd probably get more water that way than by praying.

Originally posted by

Really?

AthensCitizen,

You're right--the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that there should be a separation of church and state. However, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of separation of church and state. The most notable case that comes to mind is Lemon v. Kurtzman, which is not a case that relates directly to something like Perdue's prayer, but does support the idea that the government interprets the Establishment clause to mean a separation of church and state. More recently and on a more related note, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe came to a similar conclusion. Google it if you'd like, but the general consensus from the higher ups in government seems to be that government and religion shouldn't mix.

The Constitution doesn't the Supreme Court the power nor the authority to make some of the decisions that they have made. Which in many case are tatamount to legislation. The Constitution only alows the court to rule in law and equity. The Constitution does not say that government and religion doesn't mix either. The framers of the Constitution thought very differently than you seem to think. To alter the Constitution requires an admentment process not a court decision.

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

Really?

The Constitution is a binding compact between the peoples of the States and the federal government. IT LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Read the Federalist Papers. The powers of the federal government are limited and numbered. In fact there are only 18 of them. The first admendment is limited only to the federal government (Congress). The federal court is limited to decide case of a federal nature, that is to the araea granted by the people in the States to the federal government. The federal court by this magna carta is limited and can only decide cases constitutionally in law and equity in the federal arena. The States constitutionally have the right to establish a state religion or church if they so please. Many States retained state churches for several years after the Constitution was ratified. All states have made establishment clauses in their constitutions. The states have the right to deal with this separation as they will.
Now, do you really think that the court has been given the authority to "interpret" the constitution and other laws? Do you really think this is wise? Can they change the definition of a word or extend its meaning? Can they do this so as to materially change the meaning of the constitution or law? IS THIS MAKING DECISIONS IN LAW AND EQUITY? No, general opinion is not constitutional. The general opinion that the court interprets the constitution is super-constitutional. It is dangerous and may well indeed overthrow the Constitution, ANY YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. This is why we need a president like Ron Paul.

To your first paragraph, valid point to an extent, but it seems a little steeped in the history of the country's founding. A lot has happened since then, and to look solely to what was said or done then doesn't necessarily mean that's what should be said or done now. Ok, so state-sponsored prayer was cool in the late 1700, early 1800s. That doesn't mean now, 200 year later, it's still ok. Slavery was legal back then. In fact, the whole "how much power do the states have to govern themselves and make their own decisions" was a large factor in the Civil War. States rights didn't win.

To your second paragraphs,
Now, do you really think that the court has been given the authority to "interpret" the constitution and other laws? Yes

Do you really think this is wise? Yes

Can they change the definition of a word or extend its meaning? They can interpret it. Words are not always concrete, and meaning is definitely not always concrete.

Can they do this so as to materially change the meaning of the constitution or law? Yes. Obviously that's the case.

Are you really that worried that the Constitution is going to be overthrown by the Supreme Court? You sound like you think Roberts is going to morph into some militaristic leader, tearing apart the Constitution and ruling the country with an iron fist. I don't think the Constitution is in any particular danger. To think so seems a little silly. Your personal freedoms might be at risk, but I don't think it's the Supreme Court that's moving in on them.

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

Really?

The Constitution is a binding compact between the peoples of the States and the federal government. IT LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The first admendment is limited only to the federal government (Congress). The federal court is limited to decide case of a federal nature, that is to the araea granted by the people in the States to the federal government. The States constitutionally have the right to establish a state religion or church if they so please. Many States retained state churches for several years after the Constitution was ratified. All states have made establishment clauses in their constitutions. The states have the right to deal with this separation as they will.
No, general opinion is not constitutional. The general opinion that the court interprets the constitution is super-constitutional. It is dangerous and may well indeed overthrow the Constitution, ANY YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. This is why we need a president like Ron Paul.

Note that Amendments are part of the Constitution. Thus, the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to apply the first 10 Amendments to the states, is part of the Constitution. Without it, states would also be free to do things like outlaw all guns or enact draconian punishments, or violate search-and-seizure.

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

Really?

The Constitution is a binding compact between the peoples of the States and the federal government. IT LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Read the Federalist Papers. The powers of the federal government are limited and numbered. In fact there are only 18 of them. The first admendment is limited only to the federal government (Congress). The federal court is limited to decide case of a federal nature, that is to the araea granted by the people in the States to the federal government. The federal court by this magna carta is limited and can only decide cases constitutionally in law and equity in the federal arena. The States constitutionally have the right to establish a state religion or church if they so please. Many States retained state churches for several years after the Constitution was ratified. All states have made establishment clauses in their constitutions. The states have the right to deal with this separation as they will.
Now, do you really think that the court has been given the authority to "interpret" the constitution and other laws? Do you really think this is wise? Can they change the definition of a word or extend its meaning? Can they do this so as to materially change the meaning of the constitution or law? IS THIS MAKING DECISIONS IN LAW AND EQUITY? No, general opinion is not constitutional. The general opinion that the court interprets the constitution is super-constitutional. It is dangerous and may well indeed overthrow the Constitution, ANY YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. This is why we need a president like Ron Paul.

You ought to check out the history of the 14th admendment. It is quite interesting. Even radical. But even in the 14th admendment there is a limitation of what federal power could do.
For Really?
The Constitution was in fact for all purpose radically overthrown after 1865. It progresses by court legistated laws (I mean decisions).
BUT DO CHECK OUT THE HISTORY OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT to these united States.

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

Really?

The Constitution is a binding compact between the peoples of the States and the federal government. IT LIMITS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Read the Federalist Papers. The powers of the federal government are limited and numbered. In fact there are only 18 of them. The first admendment is limited only to the federal government (Congress). The federal court is limited to decide case of a federal nature, that is to the araea granted by the people in the States to the federal government. The federal court by this magna carta is limited and can only decide cases constitutionally in law and equity in the federal arena. The States constitutionally have the right to establish a state religion or church if they so please. Many States retained state churches for several years after the Constitution was ratified. All states have made establishment clauses in their constitutions. The states have the right to deal with this separation as they will.
Now, do you really think that the court has been given the authority to "interpret" the constitution and other laws? Do you really think this is wise? Can they change the definition of a word or extend its meaning? Can they do this so as to materially change the meaning of the constitution or law? IS THIS MAKING DECISIONS IN LAW AND EQUITY? No, general opinion is not constitutional. The general opinion that the court interprets the constitution is super-constitutional. It is dangerous and may well indeed overthrow the Constitution, ANY YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. This is why we need a president like Ron Paul.

I have checked the history of the 14th Amendment, Joe. There's some controversy over whether it was sufficiently ratified.

And yet, somehow when the issue's gun control, suddenly the right wing thinks the second Amendment applies to states, despite this history.

Originally posted by

Joe Mahler

Hum???
For you all who read that the term "freedom of religion" as "freedom FROM religion," please tell me how this can be done. Atheism is in fact a creed. It says, "I don't believe in God/gods." What you advocate is that you have the freedom to practice your religion, which does not believe in God/gods. You have no proscribed cult or form. You don't pray. So you are free to practice your religion on government grounds and free to try and force your religion on all others. You want to be free from all other religions except yours and want your standards forced on others, especiallly elected officials who now have no freedom of religion be cause you believe in freedom FROM relgion. So, if I stop on the public side walk and obviously bow my head to pray then I have somehow violated your freedom FROM religion. The same for a public official and especially a governor. For you who hold the courts in such high regard, no ruling has yet come that reflects your views. SO ADMIT IT YOU WANT THE END OF ALL EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH THAT IS NOT ATHEISM BECAUSE IT VIOLATES YOUR RELIGION AND YOUR NEWLY FOUND FREEDOM, FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Give me a break.

You sure do assume a lot. Not all of us who think the governor shouldn't have led a prayer are atheists. I, for one, am not at all an atheist. I just don't think that religion has much of a place in the government, and I definitely don't think a prayer for rain is going to relieve the drought. Yeah, it rained the next day, but watching local on the eights could have told you that pretty well before the prayer.

Obviously, though, we'll never agree. I take it you hang with the Libertarian crowd, and I, well, I don't.

Really?

So you are religious? Where does religion belong? Where is God's providence in the world? Where is freedom of religion if it is prohibited from politics? I agree it is often used wrongly. President George Bush and former president Bill Clinton have so used it. President/Governor Carter used it wrongly. But I defend their right to do so, if for no other reason than to defend my own rights and the rights of all others. I have no intention to allow a police state in these united States. The united States have stood for freedom to the world, it is supprising that citizens of the States find it so comfortable to deny freedom to others. I am a constitutionalist. If a politician calls for a prayer vigil, please don't go. But please don't try to take his freedom away. Also, you don't have t vote for him. By the way, I wouldn't vote for Sonny Perdue.

Originally posted by

Bulldawg Fan

When Athens runs out of water, maybe you can bring in your Muslim and Buddist friends to pray for rain. Clearly you belong to the Anyone-But-Christians club that normally comes crawling out of the sewers this time of year. I dare say that had some Muslim led a prayer service for rain, not a wimper would have been heard from you.

Who are you talking to? Me? If so, I would have been opposed to any governmental figure sponsoring/leading any form of prayer like Perdue did. It's not about the particular religion. Oh, and by the way, I'd call myself a Christian before I'd call myself anything else.

I meant to say "reconstruction and revisionist history."

Intellectually, yes, Thomas Jefferson was opposed to slavery. Much has been made of the famous clause that he originally put in the Declaration of Independence. It begins with, "He waged cruel war...." This famous piece if read carefully and not with a preconceived view does not condemn slavery per se. It condemns the slave trade. Jefferson being a Virginian was quite well aware that Virginia lesislature from 1630 on attempted to end the traffic in African imports to Virginia. At that time there was no permanent slavery on the slavery of the indentured nature. Seven years later the servant would have earned his freedom. Both Englishmen and Africans came to Virginia in this manner. There was, however, one major difference; the Englishman came by choice for various reasons, whereas, the African had no choice in the matter. The crown would not allow the ending of this practice of bringing Africans to America because he received taxes in the trade. Virginnians did not think that whites and blacks could live together and the majority wanted to end bringing more blacks to Virginia. Thomas Jefferson felt pretty much the same way.
The cause condemning the African Slave Trade was removed from the Declaration of Independence, popular history makes it a Souther thing, but the truth is that the Slave Trade was principally the businesss of New England and New York which continued in it well into the 1800's, even after it had been outlawed. Many of the New England delegates to the Continental Congress were themselves slave owners and enriching themselves in the slave trade including John Hancock. They opposed this clause as much as South Carolina who wanted more slaves.
New England passed laws ending slavery but did not pass laws of manumission. The net effect of the law were to get rid of the African population from among them. Because no slave was freed by the law only supposedly those children born after a certain date would at 29 years old become free. However, the day before the individual turned 29 he/she could be sold to someone else from anothe state. The purpose was, of course, to get rid of the black population. Furthermore New England passed laws forbidding a black person not already a resident to remain in the state more that 90 days. Black residents were not citizens with equal rights.
This view of New England was the same as Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to get rid of the black population within the territory of these united States. He had plans for exportation.
All this is lamentable. White Christians should have embraced black Christians as brothers and sisters. But then too the African Slave Trade cruel and unjust. The traders in taking a freeman and enslaveing against his will is a crime which should have been punished by death. But the king of England and the merchants of New England were more intersted in profit than justice. Many of the decendents of the New England became abolitionists (actually racist of a double nature). These abolitionists after the war of 1861-1865 looked for profit in the Ivory Trade. A cruel history not only the wanton slaughter of elephants but for the means to transporting the tusk to the coast of east Africa across from Zanaibar. One innocent villager was taken in slavery for each female elephant tusk and two slaves for each bull elephant tusk. Each elephant has two tusks. From central Africa to the coast they marched, more than half the slaves died on the way so more innocent villages was taken. When they reached the coast the slave be rewarded for their labor by being sold. All this for piano keys and billard balls. The ivory industry was centralized in Connecticutt.
But in all this Jefferson is considered the hypocrit.
Now concerning his intimacy was slaves. He was in fact intimate with many of his slaves. But whether this intimacy was having sex with any, that has never been proved. Most of the accusations came from political enemies. Take that for what it is worth. Now, Jefferson may have had sex with some of his slaves; it is possible; it is within the realm of probabilty. But it is no known for certain. It is, however, unjust to condemn and state as a fact what is not known for certain.