I'm supposed to warn people! Some will get it and some won't. You seem angry? Is it because people point out your ignorance all the time and won't let you do just EVERYTHING you want to?
You're supposed to warn people to go against those so called holy scriptures? My question remains.... ....and maybe you need to stop taking yourself so seriously. I was merely having a Bart Simpson moment. Ignorant people pointing out I'm ignorant? See the problem you have right there?
Slavery was flourishing too. As neither are Founded in the Constitution your argument relies on suggesting America was founded only on practces that were flourishing and not on the Constitution. See how silly your argument is.... No you donât do you! You have no argument , you can relax more.
I didn't say "everyone". You are trying too hard. And when it comes to battling religion, well, you'd be better off tilting at windmills, at least you can eventually break down a windmill.
If you think "almost everyone coming here in those days was Christian" somehow makes your statement any more valid in regard to the issue of a founding on religion ...then by all means dream on. Religon is doing a pretty good job of breaking itself down. In the new digital age , a lot of its bullshit is simply being called out .
Would you feel better if I said that that time was a more "superstitious" time? Yes, you'd agree. Like I say, you are trying too hard.
Article 6 does not even state on its face what Stu pretends it means. Stu could never find the Supreme Court confirming his delusion.... why... because the Supreme Court does not go back in time and change history... nor does it change the fact that at the time it was good law. I will again quote the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter. Stu would like to point out that in his opinion this is dicta. What Stu does not explain is that he does not understand the effect of Supreme Court dicta. And what he never do - is explain away the facts the court makes. The states had all these ties to religion... and these ties were constitutional. Which makes STU arguments delusional... "If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every Constitution of every one of the forty-four states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the wellbeing of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the Constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc. It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the Constitution of Indiana, 1816, Art. XI, section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in Articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Maryland, 1867: "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief, provided he Page 143 U. S. 469 believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in Articles 2 and 3 of part 1st of the Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780: "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality, therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of Article 7 of the Constitution of Mississippi, 1832: "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. . . . Religion morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by Article 22 of the Constitution of Delaware, (1776), which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A. B., do profess Page 143 U. S. 470 faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore, and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., and also provides in Article I, Section 7, a provision common to many constitutions, that the executive shall have ten days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill. There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While, because of a general recognition of this truth, the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . . The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious Page 143 U. S. 471 subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the Constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama, and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of @ 43 U. S. 198, this Court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania." If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which
For your information and seeing you asked , I really don't care what you say. But thanks for enquiring. It really didn't feel like trying hard to notice the way your comment.... "Almost everyone coming here in those days was Christian" .... is a myopic perception of things in a similar way to saying , Almost everyone coming here in those days was European or Irish
Jem give it a rest, you'll do yourself an injury. You've been touting this red herring around for too long. Just try to come to terms with the fact that dicta which does not refer directly to the case being considered is, in law, opinion only. Just face it Jem , you've learned something like when you learned to spell cite. You're welcome. I. At the time slavery was good in law. Did it make slavery good or right? 2. Religious requirement clauses in state constitutions became null and void by Article 6 of the US Constitution 14th Amendment. Which had the effect of getting the message home to all but the religiously deceived who couldn't read the writing on the wall between church and state,,, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Facts are facts. You really won't be able to re write history with religion. Ricter should be telling YOUâ¦.. you're trying too hard.
I see your argument is now hinging on the 14th amendment. Congrats Darrow - you now understand the separation of powers and the concept of limited Federal govt. You have learned that the establishment clause of Bill of Rights protected citizens from from Federal interference with the states right to tie to and establish religion. You have learned that protection stood until after the 14th amendment was passed and the courts developed the incorporation doctrine. You now see why your arguments were delusional. By the way this is easy for me. Its actually fun grinding your delusions to a pulp. I would expect you to turn into an agnostic non revisionist any day now.