View Single Post


September 1st, 2012, 04:46
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
I find the discussion on whether the founding fathers intended to implement proper separation between church and state to be rather pointless. Because the founding fathers didn't intend that women and blacks had the same rights as white men. And you have to look hard and long to find someone who agrees that we ought to withdraw the vote for non-whites and non-men.

That a constitution drafted for America anno 1787 is going to be a little outdated 230 years later isn't all that strange. Especially when those 230 years happen to have been the 230 most eventful years in the history of mankind. America looks almost nothing like it did back when you adopted your constitution. So instead of discussing how the founding fathers intended the constitution to be (and taking for granted that that's what's right and just, like Americans have a tendency to do), maybe you ought to instead discuss what would be best suited for the America of today?
How the heck did you think that is at all what I meant or think?

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that even by other measures of constitutionality you can show that these sharia-law-ban attempts appear to be more about an attempt to create a political show for the sake of a certain part of the base than actually protect against any real or supposed problem. Even presuming some of those law makers believed such a threat were real, I'm suggesting they are clearly not acting as such because they would rather have the bill say "sharia law" in it than write one that is constitutional.

While I do believe in the separation of church and state as it has more consistently been interpreted, the argument against those laws and to the dubious motivation behind them can be made even setting that one aside.
jhwisner is offline




Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,565