The United States of ... not America
Here's a simple question: "What is America's first-protected, most-important, and longest-cherished politically-protected right?" The answer? The rights of religious conscience. But the Supreme Court of Washington State just became another in the line of recent courts who know nothing of or don't care about this inalienable right.
The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.
The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, "The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience."
In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience." "[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted." "It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences." (Thomas Jefferson)
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... Conscience is the most sacred of all property." (James Madison, Signer of the Constitution)
"The rights of conscience and private judgment ... are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left." (John Jay, an Author of the "Federalist Papers" and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court)
"Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation." "The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society ... in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?" (William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution)
Based on this long tradition, today ...
Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars
Jehovah's Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools
The Amish are not required to complete the standard 12 years of education
Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws
Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday
And there are many additional examples.
It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states – such as that of Washington, which declares:
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion ...
But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Barronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist ...
... was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist's rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington's so-called "public accommodations law," which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers "regardless" of their sexual orientation.
Several things are wrong with this decision.
First, Barronelle has been economically fined and governmentally coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely held religious beliefs.
Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don't want to uphold its provisions.
Third, the court elevated a state law (their "public accommodations law") above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws – always.
Fourth, John Adams described us as "a government of laws and not of men," but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that "the comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell," but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/david-barton/2017/02/21/the-united-states-of-not-america
The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.
The Pilgrims journeyed to America in 1620 to escape the hounding government persecution in England, as did 20,000 Puritans in the 1630s. In 1632, government-persecuted Catholics fled to America; in 1654, persecuted Jews from Portugal; in 1680, persecuted Quakers arrived here, as did persecuted Anabaptists from Germany in 1683, 400,000 persecuted Protestants from France in 1685; and so forth. These settlers, having been punished for exercising their rights of religious conscience, promptly enshrined these rights in their own governing documents, including Rhode Island in 1640, Maryland in 1649, Jersey in 1664, Carolina in 1665, Pennsylvania in 1682, and so forth. As John Quincy Adams affirmed, "The transcendent and overruling principle of the first settlers of New England was conscience."
In 1776 when America separated from Great Britain, the rights of religious conscience were once again promptly preserved in the new state constitutions and then in the federal Constitution. According to the Founding Fathers, this was one of the most important rights they protected:
"No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience." "[O]ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted." "It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and Constitution to force tender consciences." (Thomas Jefferson)
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... Conscience is the most sacred of all property." (James Madison, Signer of the Constitution)
"The rights of conscience and private judgment ... are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left." (John Jay, an Author of the "Federalist Papers" and original Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court)
"Consciences of men are not the objects of human legislation." "The state [does not] have any concern in the matter. For in what manner doth it affect society ... in what outward form we think it best to pay our adoration to God?" (William Livingston, signer of the U. S. Constitution)
Based on this long tradition, today ...
Conscientious objectors are not forced to fight in wars
Jehovah's Witnesses are not required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools
The Amish are not required to complete the standard 12 years of education
Christian Scientists are not forced to have their children vaccinated or undergo medical procedures often required by state laws
Seventh-Day Adventists cannot be penalized for refusing to work on Saturday
And there are many additional examples.
It was because the rights of religious conscience were so important that they were specifically protected in the constitutions of the individual states – such as that of Washington, which declares:
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion ...
But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Barronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist ...
... was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist's rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington's so-called "public accommodations law," which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers "regardless" of their sexual orientation.
Several things are wrong with this decision.
First, Barronelle has been economically fined and governmentally coerced to use her talents and skills in a way that violates her sincerely held religious beliefs.
Second, the explicit wording of the Washington State constitution has been completely ignored by the Washington State Supreme Court. In essence, a Washington state court has deemed the Washington state constitution to be unconstitutional, just because they don't want to uphold its provisions.
Third, the court elevated a state law (their "public accommodations law") above the state constitution; but constitutions always trump statutory laws – always.
Fourth, John Adams described us as "a government of laws and not of men," but decisions like this make us just the opposite: the personal predilections of judges are now routinely placed above constitutional provisions duly enacted by the people.
Two centuries ago, Thomas Jefferson rejoiced that "the comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell," but this happy distinction is now disappearing. Because of this ruling (and dozens more like it in recent years), America is becoming more and more like the tyrannical governments of Europe that millions of early colonists fled in order to be free from the government persecution of their inalienable rights of religious conscience.
https://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/david-barton/2017/02/21/the-united-states-of-not-america
Tags
Who is online
125 visitors
We are rapidly losing our religious liberty and free excersize there of in parts of this country.
The early colonists arriving in America came largely seeking this right. In Europe, the governments consistently told them how to practice their faith, and punished them if they did not do what the government wanted; but the religious-minded colonists believed that no one but God could tell them how to practice their faith.
But you and other religionists are trying to interpret the Constitution in order to make everyone comply with the tenets of YOUR religions beliefs.
Rather ironic and hypocritical.
We are rapidly losing our religious liberty and free excersize there of in parts of this country.
You mean your alleged liberty to impose your beliefs on those who don't share them!
By all means, live by your beliefs … but allow others to live by theirs.
You mean your alleged liberty to impose your beliefs on those who don't share them!
By all means, live by your beliefs … but allow others to live by theirs.
Mac, I'm not even religious and I can see through that one. The woman would only be imposing her religion if she held an absolute monopoly on the florist business. The customers could easily have the job done elsewhere.
The Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition of discrimination only applies to features that are not under the control of the individual (ie. Race, Sex or National Origin). If you can show that homosexuality is genetically based and not under the control of the individual, by all means do so. I guarantee that, if you or anyone else can show by genetic testing that homosexuals are unable to control their behavior because of a demonstrable pattern in their genetic makeup and that testing of a fetus will determine whether the resulting child will be gay, any unbiased court would then allow Fourteenth Amendment protection and that the objections of Conservatives to abortion on demand will disappear. That means that gays will have full protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and that, within one generation, there will be no gays.
If you can show that homosexuality is genetically based and not under the control of the individual, by all means do so.
That's irrelevant; you are implying that you know it is not genetically based … and, if it was definitively understood to be genetically-based , would you then advocate that "discrimination is improper"? If enough people arbitrarily agree that there's no genetic "justification" for a particular behavior, is that justification for denial of civil rights ?
What if I said … "we should discriminate against Christians since there is no genetically-based phenomenon for believing in Christ … or the tenets of Christianity"?
What if a Christian converts to Judaism … in doing so does he betray his DNA?
I guarantee that, if you or anyone else can show by genetic testing that homosexuals are unable to control their behavior because of a demonstrable pattern in their genetic makeup and that testing of a fetus will determine whether the resulting child will be gay, any unbiased court would then allow Fourteenth Amendment protection and that the objections of Conservatives to abortion on demand will disappear. That means that gays will have full protection of the Fourteenth Amendment and that, within one generation, there will be no gays.
I think I answered your hypothetical just above.
I give you a better "IF" …
IF it were somehow determined that homosexuality could be "cured" WITH EMBRiOTIC STEM CELL REPLACEMENT, would there be objections from certain Christian religionists?
Equal Protection
Overview
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. The Federal Government must do the same, but this is required by the Fifth Amendment Due Process .
The point of the equal protection clause is to force a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights .
_______________________________
When doing business in the public space, a proprietor cannot deny the goods or services of that business arbitrarily to members of the public (with certain exceptions such as "NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE" -- a health concern rather than a value judgement.
We disagree, my friend … but good debate.
Great convo,
just one point to make.... (if I may interject)
Your both arguing FOR the same right. (just in case people missed it)
The real issue is people want to judge and based upon that judgment control others right feeling that they do not have theirs.
Libertarians seem to get into these very interesting juxtapositions all the time.
Both sides have the same right and exercised it.
Why does one side have the right to say the other is wrong?
That is the real issue here.
Why does one side have the right to say the other is wrong?
That is the real issue here.
Because it's part of the First Amendment concerning freedom of speech. Anyone can assert that anyone else opinion or way of doing things is wrong. I am an atheist and I can say that worshiping a god is wrong or silly or a waste of time, which is fine as long as I don't try to stop them from doing so.
You're right, Randy, you can say someone is wrong and not be held to account for doing so. That's what free speech and freedom of expression is all about However, don't say ANYTHING wrong about Islam, even Fundamentalist Imams, or you'll not only be labeled an Islamophobe but perhaps even be committing an offence. As well, it might be wise to wear armour around your neck.
I disagree.
impasse
I agree.
Well, at keast you and I can still discuss movies. LOL
There's always that. lol
However, don't say ANYTHING wrong about Islam, even Fundamentalist Imams, or you'll not only be labeled an Islamophobe
Do you mean "don't say anything IS WRONG about Islam," Buzz … not clear.
I think you're right - bad grammar on my part.
Why does one side have the right to say the other is wrong?
All sides have the "right" to claim who they believe is "right" and who is wrong. The dilemma comes not in the claims, rather in asserting that such claims allow one religious belief to supersede another!
Religious freedom is not about the Constitutional right to deny the otherwise legal and Constitutional rights of others! The "freedom to one's beliefs" is in no way synonymous with the "freedom to impose one's religious beliefs on others in such a way as to deny them any/all of their Constitutional and legal rights.
Since we're discussion religious freedom and the law, let the Bible have its say … Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" … "A man cannot serve two masters."
In my opinion, the Establishment Clause is the arbitrator settling the dilemmas …
IMO, one law cannot be used to deny the rights of others under any/all other existing laws nor take away civil rights.
The "freedom to one's beliefs" is in no way synonymous with the "freedom to impose one's religious beliefs on others in such a way as to deny them any/all of their Constitutional and legal rights.
Perfectly stated!
IMO, one law cannot be used to deny the rights of others under any/all other existing laws nor take away civil rights.
I'm very glad you said that brother. And I agree wholeheartedly.
I can beat around the bush on this one all night, point and counter point building up to a conclusion I came to well over 40 years ago.
In my youth I made all the marches, (well most of them anyway) It was both inspirational and uplifting it was also terrifying and cathartic.
An old lady and a young lady was my inspiration for such actions.
The older lady, a tenth grade teacher, Mrs Owens, History/Social Studies. Drilled into our young impenetrable skulls that exact point.
One law cannot be used to disallow any other. And any law that is used to disaffect a person of their god given civil rights is not a law but an abuse of power.
The younger lady, Rosa Parks, the living embodiment of Mrs Owens teachings. Her simple act of refusing to move to the back of the bus highlighted the abuse of power for me.
She refused cause any rule that requires one to violate a civil right IS an abuse of power.
So why do I support the Florist and Baker in these current manifestations of the abuse of power?
Cause they were exercising their first amendment right of freedom of religion. they didn't need their first amendment right of freedom of speech cause they weren't making any kind of statement, just like Rosa Parks. They were exercising their freedom of conscience, just like Rosa Parks.
So what is happening to them? They are being punished for exercising their freedom of conscience. under a law claiming to balance the books for everyone. Did what they do prevent the other people their civil rights? NO, just like Rosa Parks didn't stop anyone from exercising theirs either.
But what is happening to them is the equivalent of dragging Rosa Parks off that bus by her hair and beating the crap out of her in the gutter.
Who is the abuser now? any law that forces another to subjugate their civil rights to anyone else is an unjust law.
You said so yourself brother.
Personally, I would wish that society will stop dragging the Rosa Parks of the world off the bus and beating them.
I know, the bigots will jump all over this and say it is not the same.
But it is.
Both sides can argue for their right to have a conscience, based upon any rational judgment, but when does one conscience trump the other? when are both side allowed to believe in what they want to, be the person they are within themselves without fear of being dragged off that bus.
Rosa Parks was a voice in the darkness, one that in due time was heard by all.
We have more like her today, and I sincerely hope she will be heard by all.
Rosa Parks was a voice in the darkness, one that in due time was heard by all.
Rosa parks defied a law that denied to her, the rights extended to others.
The baker and the florist defied the law that extended rights to others, a law that would also be extended to them if they wanted and needed its benefits.
The baker and the florist are voices that wish to bring darkness back to those who once had no law to bring them into the light of day.
Big difference, my friend.
WE are just going to have to differ my friend.
Any law that awards a right to one upon the backs of the rights of others is an unjust law.
End of story for me.
Any law that awards a right to one upon the backs of the rights of others is an unjust law.
We see it 180 degrees differently.
The issue is whether or not a baker or florist has the right to discriminate by way of denying its services to individuals who do not necessarily share their religious beliefs!
Neither the baker nor florist were in any way being asked to perform or participate directly in the actual, direct act of a gay marriage … in the ritual or formalities of a religious or anti-religious service. The couple was married in a legal procedure, and, the denial to provide goods and services for a celebration in conjunction with that legal procedure has nothing to do with religious freedom … would you agree that the custodial staff of the hall could justifiably refuse to hang decorations or mop the floors … on the grounds of "religious freedom"?
When we were marching back then, we young were always reminded that when our day came to be the leaders, do not allow our sense of justice of today become the abuses of tomorrow. Do not become what we are fighting.
My personal belief is that is exactly what has happened.
It has come full circle and what I did, the good I'd hoped to do by marching, has been wasted. Exchanged for retribution/anger rather than love of fellow man.
It makes me very sad....
Not for all of us. I marched back then (in 1972 at 16 against the war in Vietnam), but ended up joining the USAF in 1973 when I turned 17. Still the feeling of wanting justice has burned in me for all of these years and I can say that at 60 years old it is still there. I am still as active as I can be. I support Sanctuary Cities. I oppose repealing the ACA and think it just needs to be tweaked (and believe that Health Care for everyone is a right just like the right to free speech!). I am strongly opposed to the new refugee Executive Orders and the new rounding up and deporting of undocumented workers who have not committed any real crimes and have been here, working hard for many years, makes my blood boil!
It has not gone away. The passion to do good is still there. I have not become what I opposed. I am 60 years old, but when it comes to social issues and politics, I am still that 16 or 17 year old idealist and will be until I die.
I agree with nowhere man one this issue. No one should be coerced into doing something that violates their religious beliefs.
The whole idea is letting everyone live by their beliefs. The free excercise of those beliefs or lack thereof.
I really don't understand this fascination the left wingers have for fudgepackers.
There's no fascination … there is, however, a recognition that, as long as someone's life style has no adverse affects on me personally, who TF am I or anyone else to declare them "un-American".
Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual; and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion ...
What is it about "Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual" …
… that you don't understand? "EVERY INDIVIDUAL" means EVERY INDIVIDUAL!
But despite the clarity of this clause, we now get word that the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that Barronelle Stutzman, a devout and pious Christian florist ...
There's no such LEGAL ENTITY AS A CHRISTIAN FLORIST; there are Christians and there are florists.; BUT FLORISTS WHO DO BUSINESS IN THE PUBLIC SPACE ARE SUBJECT TO THE TENETS OF THE 14th AMENDMENT!
... was bound by state law to use her artistic talents to design floral arrangements to celebrate what she viewed as an immoral event: a gay wedding. The pretext for overriding the florist's rights to free speech and religious liberty was Washington's so-called "public accommodations law," which required the owner, Barronelle Stutzman, to provide goods and services to customers "regardless" of their sexual orientation.
Where does that kind of "thinking" end? Can a Christian gas station attendant deny the sale of gasoline to the driver in a vehicle that has an Israeli Flag decal on one of its windows? Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, so, does that allow for the Christian attendant to exercise his rights of free speech and religious freedom and deny Jews THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?
It's not just Washington State's law, it's the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment that protects individuals from discrimination in the public space.
You want to be a righteous Christian?
ACT MORE LIKE JESUS.
Supposedly, President Trump, will fix this!
Well....he hasn't fixed anything yet. Of course most everything was running really, really good when Obama left...sooooo....
Virtually nothing was running well when Obama left office.
Virtually nothing was running well when Obama left office.
You boys do this to yourselves ad infinitum … actually, most things were running well when Obama left office.
But I'll give you the chance to prove your pronouncement … POST ONE THING AT A TIME THAT "WASN"T RUNNING WELL" … and I will respond to each one.
And before you say "Obamacare," I suggest you watch some of the video from the Republican town halls. Lots of folks who liked the sound of "repeal Obamacare, " only heard "Repeal Obama" … but now that some of the found out that THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND OBAMACARE ARE ONE-IN-THE-SAME, they're mad as hell that the Republicans want to take it away while offering no official replacement.
And where was the Dow when Obama took office, and where was it when he left? Don't tell me about the "Trump Bounce" either because it's a result of Trump wanting to de-regulate … how'd that work out with the Bush administration?
Instead of making pronouncements that "confirm" your ill-informed opinions, put up something specific and take a position … and we can have a discussion.
For some Mac, living in a perpetual state of ignorance is the status quo.
You should step away from the mirror and change your status from what you describe.
You should step away from the mirror and change your status from what you describe.
Sooner or later, someone who can't rebut a comment … but, also can't just move on …
… posts the Pee Wee Herman thing.
Are you kavikas designated spokesperson? Is he quaking in his boots in fear as you step up to defend him?
Fear of you XX....LMAO. Your like dueling with an unarmed boy.
Are you kavikas designated spokesperson? Is he quaking in his boots in fear as you step up to defend him?
Keep digging that hole you're in, XX.
I stepped in because he's probably laughing his ass off and too distracted to (figuratively) hand your yours.
Unfortunately many Trump supporters still hear him say ignorant things like "This carnage stops now!" when there wasn't one. Or "I inherited a mess" when it was really Obama who was handed a nation on the verge of economic collapse and managed, with help, to save it. He handed off to Trump a nation that really was “running like a fine-tuned machine.” and now he is bouncing from one crisis to another and fucking it all up. Well, he owns the mess he is creating and he can't blame Obama or Hillary or anyone else, because he did not inherit a mess. That is a complete and completely obvious lie. That is a pathetic excuse for his already failures and his terror of realizing that he is far over his head and has no idea of what he is doing. He is a child trying to do an adult's job and he his failing...badly.
Obama was the one who was "far over his head and had no idea what he was doing. He was a child doing an adults job and he failed...badly."
"I stepped in because..." I wanted to derail the conversation away from Lucy's point and Jeffs response and back toward the partisan backbiting I'm here to promote on opponents seeds...