Ending the Culture Wars

[mimartin]

Yes...so... Trials use all matters of opinions and evidence to reach a verdict. Even eyewitness testimony is filled with personal opinions.

 

Ask three different people to write a description of the same somewhat complex event they all witness without consulting each other and your get three different descriptions of the same event. The more they care about the event, the more varied their descriptions will be.

[JCarter426]

That's not part of the record of the trial; that's from the summary of the court's decision. It's now case law.

[SilentScope001]

Do realize that just because there is a seperation between church and state does not mean that a state can not pass a law that can be jusitifed by the church. After all, there are laws about not working on Sunday, indenecy laws, marriage laws, bans on polgymay, the law in Washigiton, D.C. that prohibits flying a kite, etc. These laws aren't illegal, aren't overturned, and in some way, shape, or form, continue to exist.

[Jvstice]

That is true.

 

My marriage isn't any more or less a marriage than it already is no matter who else is allowed to get married in the eyes of the law. It stands on its own merits. And barring physical attack that endangers either my wife or myself, nothing from outside is or could be a threat to what we have built. So I really don't see the point of the whole goal of legislating one's political opposition into criminality.

[mimartin]

That's not part of the record of the trial; that's from the summary of the court's decision. It's now case law.

Does that make it any more important that any other American's personal opinion that has be read into the record of the court’s decision? The decision is the important element, showing how they came to that conclusion does not make it more or less important.

 

Mr. Jefferson was very intelligent and a man well ahead of his time, he held great influence in writing the Declaration of Independence, but that document was edited and changed by fellow Continental Congress committee members before being sent to King George III. The same can be said of The Constitution, Jefferson and Madison are credited with writing it, but it is the vision of more than those two men. While the Constitution was written in 1787, it was not ratified by the 13 states until March of 1789. What changes had to be made during that time to ensure passage by all 13 states?

 

While I agree with Mr. Jefferson statement, his statement is still his personal opinion. If this was law, why did he not write this into the Constitution itself? Perhaps the answer could be, because his opinion was not the only opinion important in the writing of the Constitution. Since the 13 state only ratified this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/Quote] Then this is what was important to them or was all they could agree to in order to get the Constitution ratified.

 

Do realize that just because there is a separation between church and state does not mean that a state cannot pass a law that can be justified by the church.

Yes, I do. That was what the Danbury letter was about and Mr. Jefferson’s reply was saying there was nothing the Federal Government could do about it.

 

When I was learning American History in school I was lead to believe these great men all agree with what needed to be done and went about the work of creating this country. Problem with that was they were still just men and subject to the same political problems and personal problems, we face today. Only difference is they knew the art of compromise.