Posted on Apr 13, 2020
Stop Quarantining the Constitution - Patriot Academy
736
42
37
2
2
0
Where do you stand?
Stop Quarantining the Constitution - Patriot Academy
Posted from patriotacademy.comPosted in these groups: 
Constitution
Constitution
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
Actually, what you should do is read Andrew Seidel's book, "The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American", and it will explain to you exactly why you should oppose the propagandist and revisionist goal of the Patriot Academy.
(4)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSgt (Join to see) - OK, responding to your last comment.
The golden rule existed well before Christianity adopted it, with examples from ancient Egypt to Persia, to India, China, and so on, predating Christianity by centuries in most cases, and by millennia in a few cases. And some of those were by atheistic religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism.
From the New English Translation Bible, which is a literal translation from the original languages: Romans 13:1-2: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment ." Had the Founding Fathers followed the Bible, they would not have rebelled against King George, because the Bible expressly prohibits such resistance to God appointed authority. Please explain how the Founding Fathers were acting with Biblical principles while in rebellion?
We force people all the time to conform to the law, and we don't grant exceptions based on religion for a neutral law that is applied generally to everyone. That goes back to the Mormon polygamy cases, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which said that laws prohibiting bigamy could be applied to Mormons, despite their religious beliefs. The same thing happened with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), with segregation and food/rooms in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), and refusal to serve gays in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018). And before you claim that Masterpiece is a victory for the right to refuse service to gays, it's not. The opinion clearly states that if gays are a protected class by law, the state can force businesses to treat them fairly. What it can't do is have an adjudication process that is not neutral.
Finally, as to the terms used in the Declaration of Independence? Those are all references to a Deistic creator-god. See this from Veteran's Today: https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/07/03/the-declaration-of-independence-and-deism/
The golden rule existed well before Christianity adopted it, with examples from ancient Egypt to Persia, to India, China, and so on, predating Christianity by centuries in most cases, and by millennia in a few cases. And some of those were by atheistic religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism.
From the New English Translation Bible, which is a literal translation from the original languages: Romans 13:1-2: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment ." Had the Founding Fathers followed the Bible, they would not have rebelled against King George, because the Bible expressly prohibits such resistance to God appointed authority. Please explain how the Founding Fathers were acting with Biblical principles while in rebellion?
We force people all the time to conform to the law, and we don't grant exceptions based on religion for a neutral law that is applied generally to everyone. That goes back to the Mormon polygamy cases, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), which said that laws prohibiting bigamy could be applied to Mormons, despite their religious beliefs. The same thing happened with interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), with segregation and food/rooms in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), and refusal to serve gays in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018). And before you claim that Masterpiece is a victory for the right to refuse service to gays, it's not. The opinion clearly states that if gays are a protected class by law, the state can force businesses to treat them fairly. What it can't do is have an adjudication process that is not neutral.
Finally, as to the terms used in the Declaration of Independence? Those are all references to a Deistic creator-god. See this from Veteran's Today: https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/07/03/the-declaration-of-independence-and-deism/
The Declaration of Independence and Deism – Archives | Veterans Today
The Fourth of July is a time to celebrate the creation of a new unique nation. A nation based on the importance of the individual and not on “divine rights” of kings. In 1776 this unique quality set America apart from the rest of the nations on Earth.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
<sigh/> - sorry I don't speak legalese. What I am trying to point out is that each person has some sort of religious (a general term to include deism & atheism - hell, the physics community has its own religion) paradigm.
As far as Buddhist being Aethists: "Creator in Buddhism. Buddhist beliefs regarding a creator deity are varied. Theravāda Buddhism, consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator." The path of Buddha is enlightenment, betterment, and understanding. Some are strictly atheist while others are not. And they accept each other.
My understanding of the reasons for NOT basing everything on biblical scripture is actually quite sane. When power is concentrated into a small number of men (used in the general term and not denoting sex) things become corrupt. It was not a rejection of all things biblical but rather a yoke put on government. With their current situation as well as a couple hundred years of history behind them I believe they were wise beyond the norm. And even that did not happen overnight. It took years, and a convention, to write what we now have as our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
By all accounts I fall in the Deistic camp for my beliefs. Agnostic is another term I use. I was raised Christian (Baptist/Christian/Lutheran/Christ Church/7th Day/et al) and Confirmed Lutheran. The values and principles imparted through religious belief are not original to any one belief. Principles are like the laws of physics. You can argue all you want gravity does not exist - yet I dare you to step off the roof. Principles are observable through cause and effect. Heck, if Christians took the bible literally we would not have the religion of bacon.
All of that does not detract form the fact that a lot of our founding fathers were Christian (of one sort or another) and a large minority were Deists. That certainly had an influence on all of the documents that frame our great experiment. To deny that fact is to take a revisionist point of view and try to re-frame the experiment. IMHO.
The biggest schism I see between you and I is our approach to understanding a sentence. I read the sentence and take it at face value. I try to understand the intent it was written with. I imagine you take it more literally. i.e.: word 3 of the sentence, if we use definition 4a of the word, alters the meaning of the sentence in this way. Coupled with definition 1 of word 4 and I can now say that the author of the sentence meant what I believe.
"There are 2 things that will affect the spread of COVID19:
1) How dense the population is.
2) How dense the population is."
Two distinctly different meanings, 1 sentence.
Because of this I tend to apply the KISS principle to my understanding of our framing documents. Why on earth would the founding fathers purposefully obfuscate what they meant?
As far as Buddhist being Aethists: "Creator in Buddhism. Buddhist beliefs regarding a creator deity are varied. Theravāda Buddhism, consistently rejects the notion of a creator deity. It teaches the concept of gods, heavens and rebirths in its Saṃsāra doctrine, but it considers none of these gods as a creator." The path of Buddha is enlightenment, betterment, and understanding. Some are strictly atheist while others are not. And they accept each other.
My understanding of the reasons for NOT basing everything on biblical scripture is actually quite sane. When power is concentrated into a small number of men (used in the general term and not denoting sex) things become corrupt. It was not a rejection of all things biblical but rather a yoke put on government. With their current situation as well as a couple hundred years of history behind them I believe they were wise beyond the norm. And even that did not happen overnight. It took years, and a convention, to write what we now have as our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
By all accounts I fall in the Deistic camp for my beliefs. Agnostic is another term I use. I was raised Christian (Baptist/Christian/Lutheran/Christ Church/7th Day/et al) and Confirmed Lutheran. The values and principles imparted through religious belief are not original to any one belief. Principles are like the laws of physics. You can argue all you want gravity does not exist - yet I dare you to step off the roof. Principles are observable through cause and effect. Heck, if Christians took the bible literally we would not have the religion of bacon.
All of that does not detract form the fact that a lot of our founding fathers were Christian (of one sort or another) and a large minority were Deists. That certainly had an influence on all of the documents that frame our great experiment. To deny that fact is to take a revisionist point of view and try to re-frame the experiment. IMHO.
The biggest schism I see between you and I is our approach to understanding a sentence. I read the sentence and take it at face value. I try to understand the intent it was written with. I imagine you take it more literally. i.e.: word 3 of the sentence, if we use definition 4a of the word, alters the meaning of the sentence in this way. Coupled with definition 1 of word 4 and I can now say that the author of the sentence meant what I believe.
"There are 2 things that will affect the spread of COVID19:
1) How dense the population is.
2) How dense the population is."
Two distinctly different meanings, 1 sentence.
Because of this I tend to apply the KISS principle to my understanding of our framing documents. Why on earth would the founding fathers purposefully obfuscate what they meant?
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I get that. :)
You are in a minority of people that do parse words and meaning. In everything I've learned, our founding documents were meant for the majority who don't. Does not mean you are wrong and I am right but it does put a different paradigm on how to view it.
You are in a minority of people that do parse words and meaning. In everything I've learned, our founding documents were meant for the majority who don't. Does not mean you are wrong and I am right but it does put a different paradigm on how to view it.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
The article states, “Virtually every constitutionally protected liberty has been violated as part of the response to Covid19.”
That’s probably the most ridiculous statement from a mostly ridiculous, biased article.
Realistically, in times of crisis, the law permits the government extraordinary powers. Not only is the article quite hyperbolic about what is and isn’t constitutional, it’s also conspicuously lacking as to what is and isn’t actually legal.
Essentially, it’s a highly biased OpEd piece that’s lacking legitimate facts.
I don’t agree with everything that’s going on lately, but this OpEd is nothing more than that authors fairly uninformed opinion on the situation.
That’s probably the most ridiculous statement from a mostly ridiculous, biased article.
Realistically, in times of crisis, the law permits the government extraordinary powers. Not only is the article quite hyperbolic about what is and isn’t constitutional, it’s also conspicuously lacking as to what is and isn’t actually legal.
Essentially, it’s a highly biased OpEd piece that’s lacking legitimate facts.
I don’t agree with everything that’s going on lately, but this OpEd is nothing more than that authors fairly uninformed opinion on the situation.
(2)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Capt Gregory Prickett - In answer to your questions...
_What if someone needs to use the restrooms in a grocery store?
_There are not anti-viral filtration systems when out walking the dog, but six feet between people who do not live in the same household and encounter each other is deemed sufficient. As is standing six feet apart while waiting to check out at the grocery store.
_And I cannot for the life of me understand any mandate that a store that is deemed essential, cannot sell particular types of merchandise which it normally carries any way (vegetable and fruit seeds for gardening).
So singling out a Church service outdoors where social distancing is practiced seems a bit arbitrary and capricious.
_If someone needs to go to the bathroom, turn the key and drive home.
_Don't park cars within six feet of each other.
_What if someone needs to use the restrooms in a grocery store?
_There are not anti-viral filtration systems when out walking the dog, but six feet between people who do not live in the same household and encounter each other is deemed sufficient. As is standing six feet apart while waiting to check out at the grocery store.
_And I cannot for the life of me understand any mandate that a store that is deemed essential, cannot sell particular types of merchandise which it normally carries any way (vegetable and fruit seeds for gardening).
So singling out a Church service outdoors where social distancing is practiced seems a bit arbitrary and capricious.
_If someone needs to go to the bathroom, turn the key and drive home.
_Don't park cars within six feet of each other.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Maj John Bell - I’m sorry you feel that way. I originally tried pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Please refer back to your inaccurate retelling of several amendments. (And how they’ve been violated). Your response was to cite legal terms and caselaw, with no real understanding of why.
So allow me to restate from my original comment in this particular thread:
“ Realistically, in times of crisis, the law permits the government extraordinary powers. Not only is the article quite hyperbolic about what is and isn’t constitutional, it’s also conspicuously lacking as to what is and isn’t actually legal.
Essentially, it’s a highly biased OpEd piece that’s lacking legitimate facts.
I don’t agree with everything that’s going on lately, but this OpEd is nothing more than that authors fairly uninformed opinion on the situation”.
And that’s what you’ve failed to recognize or acknowledge. In the 230+ years since our Constitution came into force, subsequent legislation has been passed giving local, state and federal government incredible amount of power during times of crisis. Good, bad or otherwise, these current restrictions/quarantines are being put in place under the authority of all that subsequent legislation.
If you disagree with current restrictions, you would have a far more compelling case if you actually argued against the legislation that allowed for the governments to actually take the measures they’ve taken.
Essentially, if you want to fight the illness, you don’t just treat the symptoms.
So allow me to restate from my original comment in this particular thread:
“ Realistically, in times of crisis, the law permits the government extraordinary powers. Not only is the article quite hyperbolic about what is and isn’t constitutional, it’s also conspicuously lacking as to what is and isn’t actually legal.
Essentially, it’s a highly biased OpEd piece that’s lacking legitimate facts.
I don’t agree with everything that’s going on lately, but this OpEd is nothing more than that authors fairly uninformed opinion on the situation”.
And that’s what you’ve failed to recognize or acknowledge. In the 230+ years since our Constitution came into force, subsequent legislation has been passed giving local, state and federal government incredible amount of power during times of crisis. Good, bad or otherwise, these current restrictions/quarantines are being put in place under the authority of all that subsequent legislation.
If you disagree with current restrictions, you would have a far more compelling case if you actually argued against the legislation that allowed for the governments to actually take the measures they’ve taken.
Essentially, if you want to fight the illness, you don’t just treat the symptoms.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Maj John Bell - except it is not "singling out a Church service" as all mass gatherings are prohibited. Religion doesn't get a pass on neutral laws that apply to all.
Second, United States v. Carolene Products Co, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) doesn't mention "strict scrutiny"--it mentions "judicial scrutiny" once, in a footnote, and not in a manner that could lend itself to an interpretation that it meant strict scrutiny. It does discuss rational basis review and uses the term, "rational basis" three times in the meat of the opinion.
Second, United States v. Carolene Products Co, 304 U.S. 144 (1938) doesn't mention "strict scrutiny"--it mentions "judicial scrutiny" once, in a footnote, and not in a manner that could lend itself to an interpretation that it meant strict scrutiny. It does discuss rational basis review and uses the term, "rational basis" three times in the meat of the opinion.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Maj Bell wrote, “ It is the first case where the Supreme Court mentioned the doctrine of strict scrutiny.” The term ‘strict scrutiny’ isn’t found or mentioned in the decision.
Further evidence that the good Major is relying on the Wikipedia for his information. Per the Wikipedia page on ‘strict scrutiny’ it states:
“The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)...”
When I earlier asked him if he could explain the relevance of the case after he posted it, I had a hunch he would step on his own land mine. Another example of not quite understanding, and the potential danger of using Wikipedia as a friend.
Further evidence that the good Major is relying on the Wikipedia for his information. Per the Wikipedia page on ‘strict scrutiny’ it states:
“The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)...”
When I earlier asked him if he could explain the relevance of the case after he posted it, I had a hunch he would step on his own land mine. Another example of not quite understanding, and the potential danger of using Wikipedia as a friend.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google