Racism in Jury Selection - Supreme Court Case

[Greg Jennings]

You are asking us to disprove a very narrow interpretation of that phrase of several possible. It is up to you to prove your narrow interpretation is the only possibly correct one among many.

Not my interpretation. Thomas Jefferson's

"Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"—Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

 

[Greg Jennings]

Whether they were religious or not, there were plenty who had a lot to say about morality and freedom. Please give some examples of those who didn't think that way.

I didn't say anything about freedom and morality. Just that they weren't religious, and therefore religion wasn't what they pulled their ideals of freedom and morality from.

Since "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution and was not an issue until the latter part of the 20th century, and the Constitution and explanatorily the writings of the founders gave freedom to the states to set their own religion (or church), I think I don't need to show anything. You do.

Do you trust Thomas Jefferson, as one of the founding fathers, to know what he meant when he spoke of the first amendment?

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church". Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States."

The Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled on cases using "separation of church and state" as constitutional authority

 

[ClimateSanity]

Correct! Which is why Christians have no right to try and take away rights from others based on their own religious beliefs.

Who said they were? You do not have the right to be free of public expressions of faith or certain faiths being honored in some way by the government. A granite structure of the ten commandments inside of a government building does not take any rights away from you. Claiming offense is your problem. You do not have a right to be offense free. If you venture out in public, you have no right to walk around without exposure to religious sentiment, even on government property. You cannot deny government employees their rights to express their faith even if they are on duty. You can protest your taxes being used to pay someone doing things that are not strictly part of their job, but your rights are not being violated. You do not have a right to a seperation of church and state of your own making alien from the original intent of the founding fathers.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Who said they were?

genuineoriginal

You do not have the right to be free of public expressions of faith or certain faiths being honored in some way by the government. A granite structure of the ten commandments inside of a government building does not take any rights away from you. Claiming offense is your problem. You do not have a right to be offense free. If you venture out in public, you have no right to walk around without exposure to religious sentiment, even on government property. You cannot deny government employees their rights to express their faith even if they are on duty. You can protest your taxes being used to pay someone doing things that are not strictly part of their job, but your rights are not being violated. You do not have a right to a seperation of church and state of your own making alien from the original intent of the founding fathers.

I don't have a problem with any of that. I have a problem with gay people being denied marriage and other basic rights because the bible says two guys is icky

 

[brewmama]

genuineoriginal



I don't have a problem with any of that. I have a problem with gay people being denied marriage and other basic rights because the bible says two guys is icky

The people have a right to decide what constitutes marriage and family and right and wrong in their State, not the court. If you are talking about basic human rights, then everyone in the world would have a "right" to marry. That's how human rights work. Yet not everyone can marry.What if no one wants to marry you? Your logic says if you have a "right" to marry then the state has to provide you with a spouse, just as now that gay "spouses" have a right to be a family, they have to be given a child from another source, the well-being of the child be damned.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The people have a right to decide what constitutes marriage and family and right and wrong in their State, not the court. If you are talking about basic human rights, then everyone in the world would have a "right" to marry. That's how human rights work. Yet not everyone can marry.What if no one wants to marry you? Your logic says if you have a "right" to marry then the state has to provide you with a spouse, just as now that gay "spouses" have a right to be a family, they have to be given a child from another source, the well-being of the child be damned.

Who is denied the right to marry in countries where human rights are not repressed? (i.e. places like North Korea, Middle East dictatorship, and so on are what I mean by countries that repress rights)

The ability to get married is a right. Now if no one will have you then you might not get married, but you still have the right to pursue it. Rights aren't handouts. They're things that all people have the ability to pursue without fear of persecution. For example, I have the right to open my own business, but if my credit is terrible and I can't get a needed loan then it's not going to work. Understand?

 

[brewmama]

I didn't say anything about freedom and morality. Just that they weren't religious, and therefore religion wasn't what they pulled their ideals of freedom and morality from.

Yet their morals are the same ones used by pretty much all religious people today. If they could use them, why can't we?

Do you trust Thomas Jefferson, as one of the founding fathers, to know what he meant when he spoke of the first amendment?

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Since the First Amendment clearly places the restrictions solely on the state, some argue a more correct phrase would be the "separation of state FROM church".

I do, since he wrote it for political reasons only.

"Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President "regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion."[4]

Yet in reality:

"Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

Either way, the "separation" phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States."

The Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled on cases using "separation of church and state" as constitutional authority

You don't need to tell me how the activist Court has usurped their authority and invented constitutional authority where there was none.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The people have a right to decide what constitutes marriage and family and right and wrong in their State, not the court.

They do up to the point that it infringes on the rights of others. Just like a satanist can't legally take your dog for a sacrifice, a Christian can't legally deny a gay man a marriage license. Religious freedom ends when other people are made to suffer.

 

[brewmama]

Who is denied the right to marry in countries where human rights are not repressed? (i.e. places like North Korea, Middle East dictatorship, and so on are what I mean by countries that repress rights)

The ability to get married is a right. Now if no one will have you then you might not get married, but you still have the right to pursue it. Rights aren't handouts. They're things that all people have the ability to pursue without fear of persecution. For example, I have the right to open my own business, but if my credit is terrible and I can't get a needed loan then it's not going to work. Understand?

No, it is not a right. It is a good. Rights are not something you can "pursue", they are inalienable and are the rights a person has simply because he or she is a human being. Misconstruing the language to allow perversions and license to all is hardly a good in society.

 

[brewmama]

They do up to the point that it infringes on the rights of others. Just like a satanist can't legally take your dog for a sacrifice, a Christian can't legally deny a gay man a marriage license. Religious freedom ends when other people are made to suffer.

Yet this is some new right suddenly made up that never existed before, and like I said is simply to allow perversion and sexual license to exist without dissent.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yet their morals are the same ones used by pretty much all religious people today. If they could use them, why can't we?

I'm not really sure what you think I'm saying, but I have no problem with you having the same morals as the founders.

I do, since he wrote it for political reasons only.

"Although today Jefferson's Danbury letter is thought of as a principled statement on the prudential and constitutional relationship between church and state, it was in fact a political statement written to reassure pious Baptist constituents that Jefferson was indeed a friend of religion and to strike back at the Federalist-Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut for shamelessly vilifying him as an infidel and atheist in the recent campaign. James H. Hutson of the Library of Congress has concluded that the President "regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion."[4]

Yet in reality:

"Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the "high and impregnable" wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own "wall of separation."

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...changed-church-state-law-policy-and-discourse

That's interesting. But the wall of separation is there mostly to ensure that the rights of religious minorities are not trampled upon by the majority. Jefferson may have contradicted himself in terms of providing funding here and there, but the message of basic rights being given to all equally stands.

Jefferson, and the rest of the founders, all also contradicted themselves when they said that all men have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by owning slaves. But you don't see people clambering to re-institute slavery, do you?

You don't need to tell me how the activist Court has usurped their authority and invented constitutional authority where there was none.

I'd agree that it has happened, but to say that is the norm isn't accurate

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, it is not a right. It is a good. Rights are not something you can "pursue", they are inalienable and are the rights a person has simply because he or she is a human being. Misconstruing the language to allow perversions and license to all is hardly a good in society.

You have the right to pursue it. That's covered under both liberty and pursuit of happiness. Is that clear enough? I don't know how to make it more clear.

And you never gave me a country where marriage isn't allowed for people against their will. Care to do that?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yet this is some new right suddenly made up that never existed before, and like I said is simply to allow perversion and sexual license to exist without dissent.

So you think that gays should be legally denied marriage. Then tell me why a satanist can't take your dog and sacrifice it?

 

[brewmama]

So you think that gays should be legally denied marriage. Then tell me why a satanist can't take your dog and sacrifice it?

Because someone stealing my property, which is illegal, has absolutely nothing to do with redefining marriage so that it means nothing anymore. I don't know why you keep asking such a pointless question.

 

[bybee]

So you think that gays should be legally denied marriage. Then tell me why a satanist can't take your dog and sacrifice it?

It would be called theft.
Civil union is mandated by the Law. I do not choose to call marriage anything except one man and one woman.

 

[oatmeal]

Blacks are far more racist against blacks than white people are.

About 1000 times more than whites are to blacks.

How do I figure this?

about 98-99% of blacks are murdered by other blacks.

based only on that, blacks are 100 times more likely to murder another black than a white man is, figure in that there are about ten times more whites than blacks in this country you could say that a black man is 1000 times more likely to murder another black than a white man would murder a black man.

Does many of the black culture make that many excuses for blacks murdering people?

Why the outcry by the NAACP whenever a black is killed by a white?

Does the NAACP want a monopoly on black murders?

Seems like the liberal policies of many blacks excuses murder.

Maybe that is why some prosecutors, who want justice, work to exclude blacks from juries.

If any reads this as racist, well, maybe you should stop and actually look at the facts first.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The founders disagree.

You disagree with the founders.

Back to my question I posed to you: since you love religious freedom for everyone and you must respect the religion of others, why shouldn't satanists be allowed to steal pets for sacrifices?

Since you are unable to understand that the Constitution refused to take away the rights of the State to make laws regarding religious freedom but only restricted the Federal government from being able to make laws regarding religious freedom, you won't accept my answer.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Because someone stealing my property, which is illegal, has absolutely nothing to do with redefining marriage so that it means nothing anymore.

Oh but it does my friend. Marriage is no longer simply a title for two people in union. Married people receive special tax breaks, have access to each other's finances, inherit a dead spouse's belongings, and so on. So if you deny marriage to gay people, you are denying them the special rights and privileges that go along with it. And that is illegal, as all people are supposed to have equal rights and opportunity.

So if you have a problem with someone taking your property because it's yours, why do want to deny others the rights and privileges that, per the constitution, are theirs?

 

[Greg Jennings]

You disagree with the founders.



Since you are unable to understand that the Constitution refused to take away the rights of the State to make laws regarding religious freedom but only restricted the Federal government from being able to make laws regarding religious freedom, you won't accept my answer.

I literally just refuted this same argument from you in my last response to you, where I gave you information that contradicts just about everything you've said here.

In my few conversations with you regarding government and the constitution I've noticed a theme. And that theme is that you claim to know what the founders had in mind, then when confronted with the fact that they don't share your view simply ignore that fact and keep yelling the same thing over and over. Welp, just like a bunch of blathering from you won't change the science behind the actual age of the Earth, it won't change the intentions of long dead forefathers

 

[bybee]

Oh but it does my friend. Marriage is no longer simply a title for two people in union. Married people receive special tax breaks, have access to each other's finances, inherit a dead spouse's belongings, and so on. So if you deny marriage to gay people, you are denying them the special rights and privileges that go along with it. And that is illegal, as all people are supposed to have equal rights and opportunity.

So if you have a problem with someone taking your property because it's yours, why do want to deny others the rights and privileges that, per the constitution, are theirs?

The law guarantees rights to those entering into civil unions. Marriage is before God and the Congregation.
I still get to choose those with whom I shall congregate. No doubt that also shall be taken away before long.