HeatherSecombe

An art and opinion blog

Just a crude quick sketch

Amid the crazy festivities, let's take a moment to remember what today is all about.

ladyhistory:

The men of the 2nd Continental Congress outright defied their king by adopting and later signing the Declaration of Independence because they believed that subjects to a government ought to have rights and freedoms under that government.

They believed that when people are…

22 hurt in mass stabbing at US school

So the question begs should we ban knifes now? The point of matter of why I am posting this is to say that you cannot stop the insane. The same goes for China (more) or the UK. (more). It does not matter where you ban the guns the insane with always find new and creative ways to kill or harm in multiply numbers. I leave you with this thought, prohibition often lead to new and creative ways of getting around the prohibited item which was often more dangerous or worse than item that was banned. Would you really prefer killers coming up with new ways to kill in mass like the China stabbings where you are defenseless against it and the police can do nothing. I understand this sounds like a false Dichotomy in a way but, to me I would rather protect my self than whimper in a corner and hand to hand self defense classes will only protect you to a point.

ladyhistory:

GATHER ROUND PEOPLE WE’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
First, the concept of the separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution at all; it was a idea that was forged and supported by Thomas Jefferson to describe his views of religion’s place in politics. What this concept says is that there is an invisible wall between religion (church) and government (state)—we don’t know how high the wall is or how thick it is, just that it exists. Basically, government and religion can INTERACT but they cannot CONTROL each other. Religion cannot control government (that would be a theocracy) and government cannot control religion (a violation of the 1st amendment). Imagine a person on each side of a brick wall. They can talk with each other and shake hands over the top of the wall, but the wall keeps them from attacking or dominating each other.
What we DO find in the Constitution is something called the Establishment Clause, which is the very first part of the first amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” The Establishment Clause means this: the government cannot create a religion OR pass laws that do so. The Supreme Court has further ruled to say that this also means that the government cannot encourage one religion over another, which would still be essentially starting/establishing a religion of some kind. That’s where you get your school prayer cases, religious public display cases, etc.
SO to answer your question: NO, the government cannot make laws just about Christianity or any other religion in particular because that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause—it would basically be like the government saying “Hey, we like this religion so much we’re gonna officially recognize it and encourage it by making laws about it because it’s better than other religions.”
On an aside, that would also violate the Free Exercise Clause, the next part of the First Amendment that says Congress can’t make laws “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…which means Congress can’t make laws that get in the way of how you practice your religion or not practice a religion (however, it’s not freedom of religion if your practice breaks the law, offends public morals, or puts others in danger).
tl;dr; THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LAWS CREATING A RELIGION, ENCOURAGING A RELIGION, OR GETTING IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE’S EXERCISE/NONEXERCISE OF RELIGION

ladyhistory:

GATHER ROUND PEOPLE WE’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT

First, the concept of the separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution at all; it was a idea that was forged and supported by Thomas Jefferson to describe his views of religion’s place in politics. What this concept says is that there is an invisible wall between religion (church) and government (state)—we don’t know how high the wall is or how thick it is, just that it exists. Basically, government and religion can INTERACT but they cannot CONTROL each other. Religion cannot control government (that would be a theocracy) and government cannot control religion (a violation of the 1st amendment). Imagine a person on each side of a brick wall. They can talk with each other and shake hands over the top of the wall, but the wall keeps them from attacking or dominating each other.

What we DO find in the Constitution is something called the Establishment Clause, which is the very first part of the first amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” The Establishment Clause means this: the government cannot create a religion OR pass laws that do so. The Supreme Court has further ruled to say that this also means that the government cannot encourage one religion over another, which would still be essentially starting/establishing a religion of some kind. That’s where you get your school prayer cases, religious public display cases, etc.

SO to answer your question: NO, the government cannot make laws just about Christianity or any other religion in particular because that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause—it would basically be like the government saying “Hey, we like this religion so much we’re gonna officially recognize it and encourage it by making laws about it because it’s better than other religions.”

On an aside, that would also violate the Free Exercise Clause, the next part of the First Amendment that says Congress can’t make laws “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…which means Congress can’t make laws that get in the way of how you practice your religion or not practice a religion (however, it’s not freedom of religion if your practice breaks the law, offends public morals, or puts others in danger).

tl;dr; THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LAWS CREATING A RELIGION, ENCOURAGING A RELIGION, OR GETTING IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE’S EXERCISE/NONEXERCISE OF RELIGION

frostbiterainbowsnowcone said: So, about the whole church v. state argument going on here, I remember my own government teacher from last year. He showed us several clips of the tv show Newsroom and I was wondering, how are some states just sliding by with blatantly religious oriented laws? I was Texan by birth and had we stayed there instead of moving to NY, it would be 100% okay to expel my gay brother from school, refuse to give him resources, etc, etc, when doing such things would be a blatant display of prejudice.

ladyhistory:

I am also a Texan and live in the South :)

How are some states sliding by with doing unconstitutional things? How does the federal government slide by with doing unconstitutional things?

I’m going to say this a little passionately…

BECAUSE AMERICANS AS A WHOLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT OR WHAT IT DOES. THEY ARE TOTALLY FINE WITH NOT VOTING OR PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE DOING OR WHAT POLICIES ARE BEING PASSED. THE PEOPLE LET THE GOVERNMENT DO ITS OWN THING AND THEY SURE AS HECK DON’T GET INVOLVED WITH CALLING POLITICIANS OUT ON DOING THINGS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

James Madison said in Federalist #51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government…

IT IS THE PEOPLE’S JOB TO KEEP THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE— PEOPLE ELECT A GOVERNMENT TO RULE OVER THEM SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

BUT WE KEEP ELECTING THE SAME ABUSIVE OFFICIALS AND WE CONTINUE THE SAME IGNORANCE OF WHAT IS GOING ON OUR STATES AND IN D.C. AND THEN WONDER WHY SO MANY THINGS ARE GOING AWRY. 

WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE (I.E. VOTING, CONTACTING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, PROTESTING, ETC.), THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND WILL ABUSE ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.

Barack Obama to send more troops to Iraq as crisis escalates - Telegraph

Facebook conducted secret psychology experiment on users' emotions - Telegraph

This is why I have few friends on and rarely get on, facebook, we need to be aware of emotional manipulation, even if you have to cold, even if you have to be cynical  look into the subject deeper than the base level of tears and whimpering. We have forgotten to ask questions and in this we listen more to emotion than reason.

Why is Facebook Manipulating Your Emotions?

LiveLeak.com - DUI Suspects Face Forced Blood Draws

This looks like a scene out of movies. I mean really I dont watch many movies, but from what I can remember in seeing ultra violet (yes I know, terrible movie) or aeon flux. This seems eerily familiar strapped down, no way out, harsh methods and no real consent or choice. Just the illusion of choice.

Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown

I wonder why.

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

This is extremely good point made, by someone in Switzerland about the right to keep and bare arms.

Global Meltdown Has Begun

Time to spread the word because its coming

Police riot training in fake Kent town - in pictures

Just on a side note here, I decided to add a little proof that this worrisome emergence of a possible police state, isn’t just a occurrence in the USA.

Something that does make me angry is these governments can spend hundreds of thousands to millions of taxpayer dollars making urban warfare training centers in both the US (Virginia, There is a even post from the US army main site to confirm that there is indeed an urban area and it is for Asymmetric warfare training ) and now the UK. You are telling me that new cities can be built for training purposes, but there’s not enough money to fix roads, fix housing, make more efficient upgrades to quality of water, power and living standards, but fake cities or urban warfare training centers can be built. Try to justify it all you want, however the fact these are being built now, not only in the US, but in other countries raises some eyebrows at least.

‘Virtually Crime Free’ County in Florida Gets MRAP Armored Vehicle

Police state anyone? Oh do worry its obviously just for the new terror threat ISIS, right? Except they haven’t magically shown up on anyone’s shores outside the middle east so somehow they are a massive threat…