Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on ""Statue of Liberty" Painting Found In Democrat's Office, Then America Spots Something Unusual" video.

  1. Yes, and you will notice that this fictional Muslim lady is holding the torch like a weapon, which she is ready to swing. You see, when the right wanted the Ten Commandments shown, the left couldn't have that, but when the shoe is placed on the other foot, the Democrats always find an excuse. I say, let him keep it, as this gives the right more claim to have what they want, such as the Ten Commandments shown in our courts. This clearly religious-toned painting, in a public office, can be brought up, if the left complains.
    4
  2. Kacie Anderson: There is also the fact, that a separation of church and state can be found nowhere in our Constitution, nor within the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court cited a letter, by Jefferson, to the Danbury Baptists, but Jefferson had no part in writing the 1st Amendment. Madison's original words, were a ban on state religion, but not the removal of religion from the people making up our government, nor removing religion from within the government itself. We know this, because oaths are sworn upon the bible, and there has always been a prayer, led by a chaplain, in congress, since that time. I say, let him have it, as this gives the right a weapon to use against the left, supporting the Ten Commandments being placed in the courts. That is the ancient moral laws, written by kings, which is older than the Jews, no matter the claims of their origin within the Bible. Madison's original words: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances."
    3
  3. No, Kacie, the 1st Amendment does not imply it, it never did. The justices implied it, and used Jefferson's letter, and his opinion, later on, for the case, instead of citing Madison's original intent. Jefferson was a deist, who didn't have the same beliefs as the others. It was Jefferson's interpretation, not that of the amendment's author, James Madison. If they had meant a strict wall of separation, then they would have dropped any use of the bible, the congressional prayer, and any mention of the Ten Commandments, after it was passed, which they didn't do. This argument has been ongoing since 1879, with those on the right, especially the religious, decrying what the court ruled. The 1879 ruling was over bigamy and polygamy, where the court claimed that the Mormon's religious rights did not prevail. "The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."" They concluded this, even though the final condensed version of the 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, _or prohibiting the free exercise thereof_." "The Court believed [by using Jefferson] the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action." However, not long back, the courts ruled that certain religions could use Peyote in religious ritual, as a religious right, which is also against the law otherwise. Federal law allows it now, but Oregon resisted it. There is also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which flies in the face of the 1879 judgement. "Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which required the application of strict scrutiny. In response to the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, which declared the RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious landowners and prisoners." Also, "in 1997, the United States Supreme Court held the RFRA to be unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507. Unlike the RFRA, which required religious accommodation in virtually all spheres of life, RLUIPA only applies to prisoner and land use cases," and, "in response to City of Boerne v. Flores and other related RFR issues, twenty individual states have passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities." After the above, Oregon changed their law on Peyote. Thus, it is still an ongoing battle, as in 2014, "U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups said that the state [Utah] could keep the ban, [on polygamy] but would not be allowed to arrest people who violate it by living together in common-law marriage situations. This week Waddoups followed that decision with a ruling that the state had violated the religious, free speech, and due process rights of the plaintiffs. The state also owes them court fees, said Waddoups." However, in 2016, "a three-judge federal appeals court panel on Monday handed a setback to the burgeoning polyamorous rights movement, reversing a lower court ruling that decriminalized polygamous cohabitation in Utah." Whether the Brown family will take this on to the Supreme Court is unknown. Utah is resisting arresting anyone practicing polygamy, because it will certainly open up a can of worms if they do. It also depends on how the Supreme Court is stacked, as that 1879 ruling may be overturned, though what they would do about human sacrifice and marrying underage, which is what this is really about, I have no idea. In reality, a new amendment needs to be passed, which bans ritual murder or sexual abuse in religion, but leaves the rest alone. I do not see polygamy with those of legal age as sexual abuse, since both parties are willing. Underage sex or marriage and murder, I do. In reality, there is a split on the opinion of the 1879 ruling, between left and right.
    2