Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on ""Pro-Life" State Allows Adoption Agencies To Discriminate" video.

  1. Well, to begin with the history lesson, I don't think that the Norse left the continent. I think they lived with the native tribes of North America. There's been evidence, scant as it is, of Teutonic runic alphabets being inscribed on stone as far inland as Oklahoma and even evidence of at least one Longhouse in North America. That would definitely indicate these were not short raiding trips. Christopher Columbus thought that Eratosthenes' 3rd century BC measurement of the globe was too large. He landed in "India" about when he predicted he would. The land was considered to be Asia until a few years later when Amerigo Vespucci was accompanying a voyage along South America's East coast when he realized it extended much further south than it should have. He, therefore, declared it was not Asia but a new continent entirely and named it after himself. Now onto secularism in the United States... Given the historical context, the intention was clearly never to disparage individual religiousness in any form or fashion. After the Bill of Rights was ratified and George Washington was entering into his second term in office, he swore in on a Bible. If this were not a long-standing tradition, I would think that the secularists of the 20th and 21st centuries would feel the same about that as they do about a high school coach praying with their team before a game. But this gives us indication of what secularism in the US is supposed to mean. It seems it was never intended to prevent individuals, no matter their official capacity, from exercising their religion at any time of their choosing. Now what the anti-secularist movement has been reaching for is that this is a Christian nation. To me, this is also incorrect. Even at the height of the Barbary Wars (Muslims of Northern Africa who engaged in piracy from the Mediterranean to the West Indies), many of the Founding Fathers wrote that the people and their religion were welcome in the United States. The same sentiments about the same time were extended to Jewish people as well as even religions of the Far East such as Confucianism, as written by one signer of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, Benjamin Rush, who wrote the preceding also spoke out against a person having no religious philosophy. The citizens of Virginia wrote to the Assembly that to remove Islamic people "by establishing the Christian religion lest thereby we become our own enemys and weaken this infant state." Both of these positions are easily proven false, as you can see. The true answer is disturbing to both left and right wingers, because neither have a proper understanding of the Founding Fathers on the matter. But then, we don't technically need an understanding of the Founding Fathers' opinions. We have the ability to amend the Constitution for clarity and for modern situations. And this is where I stand. If you want to legislate guns, change the Constitution. If you want a strictly secularist government, amend the Constitution. If you want to prevent hate speech, amend the Constitution. No, it's not easy, and it shouldn't be. It was written to not be easy to do. But it's time we stop allowing the government, through the Supreme Court, to make partisan interpretations of the law and start requiring amendments to make clarifications.
    3
  2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It does not give legislative powers to any religion. It does not prevent people from practicing their religion. In fact, it further guarantees that a person can freely practice their religion.
    1
  3. Fukai, the Founding Fathers took issue with protestants being under the thumb of the Anglican church which had legislative powers. Christian fundamentalists do not have legislative powers.
    1
  4. Tyler, do you really think that matters?
    1
  5. Samuel, the First Amendment by its words states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Anyone can pass any law for any reason they see fit. But what you can't do, by the words, is pass a law that provides any legislative powers to a religion as a whole or keep anyone from freely practicing their religion. SCOTUS rulings that interpret that are complex from there. However, I don't hold the SCOTUS in high regard because their findings are too often partisan and rarely actually based on the Founding Father's intentions for the various amendments. The disallowance of discriminatory practices by the religious is worrisome, and that's coming from an atheist (6 on the Dawkin's Scale, if you're curious).
    1
  6. Samuel, puritans of the Anglican church (puritans were Anglican, but considered protestant by the Anglican church) were only part of those who came over to the New World. Many different protestants, from Lutherans to Calvinists, did to escape the persecution that the Anglican Church laid down with the enforcement of the Crown and Parliament. This type of persecution is what the Founding Fathers were attempting to avoid.
    1
  7. Siriusly, what does it matter if they get government grants?
    1
  8. Tria, this keeps being said, but no one's yet actually argued the point.
    1
  9. James Madison, who wrote the First Amendment, also wrote that religious rights should be equal to civil rights.
    1