Oregon SB719A Time to Write State Senators

[N Monty]

But if you read the US constitution you will not find a separation clause at all.

You are absolutely correct! There is no "separation" clause. It's the Establishment Clause. Sorry for the error.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--meaning that not only no church but no "religion" could be made the official faith of the United States.

The Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. (These prohibitions were extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Sounds like we're on the same page.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

You are absolutely correct! There is no "separation" clause. It's the Establishment Clause. Sorry for the error.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--meaning that not only no church but no "religion" could be made the official faith of the United States.

The Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. (These prohibitions were extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment.)

Sounds like we're on the same page.

Maybe, maybe not. Many frequent examples abound of the government prohibiting free exercise of religion, (Not just Christianity, I could cite Judaism, Sikhism, and even Islam being in this same quagmire.) much in the same way I would state that 2nd amendment infringement occurs.I view that to preserve religious rights, people of various faiths are going to have to work together to prevent over-reach.

However, it is merely denial of historical documents to deny that our founders were not by and large at least giving public lip-service to the Christian faith. That list is long and while there do seem to be contradictory statements by some, it seems the majority claimed the Christian faith. Now, I also keep in mind the nature of politicians may not have changed, accounting for some who seem to make rather expedient and contradictory claims.

 

[N Monty]

Maybe, maybe not. Many frequent examples abound of the government prohibiting free exercise of religion, (Not just Christianity, I could cite Judaism, Sikhism, and even Islam being in this same quagmire.) much in the same way I would state that 2nd amendment infringement occurs.

However, it is merely denial of historical documents to deny that our founders were not by and large at least giving public lip-service to the Christian faith. That list is long and while there do seem to be contradictory statements by some, it seems the majority claimed the Christian faith. Now, I also keep in mind the nature of politicians may not have changed, accounting for some who seem to make rather expedient claims.

Yep. Sounds like we're on the same page. First, the government has absolutely restricted freedom of religion in the past. They've also restricted freedom of the press. (Lincoln did it.) The currently restrict the 4th Amendment through their domestic surveillance programs. The restrict the 2nd wherever they can. In all instances it is unacceptable. Freedom is #1 to me.

Many Founders in their personal life were Christian, I do not deny that. But they also tried to prevent that belief from bleeding over into their newly founded Government- to do so would have been entirely hypocritical to the desire to be free from religious persecution in the first place.

One major reason, from the other side of the aisle, for the Establishment Clause was to prevent politicians from (as you so well said) expediently claiming religion to sway votes. Slimy politicians won't hesitate to manipulate religion to their own ends.

"It is this concept--that use by political leaders of religion for their own ends was a danger both to the faithful and to the peace of society--that the Constitution embodies. James Madison wrote that government involvement with the church "implies either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truth; or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."​

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Many Founders in their personal life were Christian, I do not deny that. But they also tried to prevent that belief from bleeding over into their newly founded Government- to do so would have been entirely hypocritical to the desire to be free from religious persecution in the first place.

I would disagree on that point, merely because one's worldview is largely monolithic. IOWs, our values and morals are shaped by our standard of morality. Those values and morals govern our life, and choices. I also think one of the gravest tragedies of our current culture is the demand of hypocrisy, by demanding a duplicitous divide between public and private values as if the two can be held separately.

 

[Hang-Man]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yep, slimy politico's need to have the Noose tight to prevent their slipping out.

So Salem and the state of Oregon is YOUR Government eh Monty? Figures. Are you a state employee?

 

[N Monty]

So Salem and the state of Oregon is YOUR Government eh Monty? Figures. Are you a state employee?

Nope. Still not a state employee. If I were at least I'd have a sweet pension lined up.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. Authority to rule is given by the consent of the governed. So yes, it is my State. It's also your State. The State's failure to represent our interests while preserving our liberties is it's own egg to fry.

I would disagree on that point, merely because one's worldview is largely monolithic. IOWs, our values and morals are shaped by our standard of morality. Those values and morals govern our life, and choices. I also think one of the gravest tragedies of our current culture is the demand of hypocrisy, by demanding a duplicitous divide between public and private values as if the two can be held separately.

The Founders grew up during the Enlightenment, however. These people were religious, but had a lofty goal- the separation of church and state, as it were:

The concept of separating church and state, [is] an idea that is often credited to English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). According to his principle of the social contract, Locke said that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he said must therefore remain protected from any government authority.

These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with the social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution. Thomas Jefferson called for a "wall of separation between church and state" at the federal level. He previously had supported successful efforts to disestablish the Church of England in Virginia, and authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson's political ideals were greatly influenced by the writings of John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton whom he considered the three greatest men that ever lived.​

Likewise, our morality is more often guided by our culture than our religion. People pick and choose from the Bible those parts which match the morality of their era, and disregard the other parts. We don't hush women from speaking in church, or teaching men, contrary to the New Testament's directive.

Morality is present in all societies in some form. There were moral people and moral codes long before the Hebrews came along and much earlier than Jesus.

If morality comes from the teachings of god, who taught the ancient Chinese their morals? Who taught the Iroquois Indians, before Columbus? Muslims claim that their morality comes directly from god as written in the Koran. Mormons teach that their morality comes from god as written in the book of Mormon. The Hopi have a well-developed moral and ethical code, but it is not what you or I would recognize. While all of these groups claim that some god gave them their morality, the fact is that no society can live long without rules for successful interaction. No gods gave them these moral rules; tradition and the need to live peacefully within a larger group, brought these about.
​

Edit: We've gone way off the rails on this one.

Religion or not, I think you'll all agree: Fuсk SB719A!

​

 

[Wombat of Doom]

Nope. Still not a state employee. If I were at least I'd have a sweet pension lined up.

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. Authority to rule is given by the consent of the governed. So yes, it is my State. It's also your State. The State's failure to represent our interests while preserving our liberties is it's own egg to fry.



The Founders grew up during the Enlightenment, however. These people were religious, but had a lofty goal- the separation of church and state, as it were:

The concept of separating church and state, [is] an idea that is often credited to English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). According to his principle of the social contract, Locke said that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he said must therefore remain protected from any government authority.

These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with the social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution. Thomas Jefferson called for a "wall of separation between church and state" at the federal level. He previously had supported successful efforts to disestablish the Church of England in Virginia, and authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Jefferson's political ideals were greatly influenced by the writings of John Locke, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton whom he considered the three greatest men that ever lived.​

Likewise, our morality is more often guided by our culture than our religion. People pick and choose from the Bible those parts which match the morality of their era, and disregard the other parts. We don't hush women from speaking in church, or teaching men, contrary to the New Testament's directive.

Morality is present in all societies in some form. There were moral people and moral codes long before the Hebrews came along and much earlier than Jesus.

If morality comes from the teachings of god, who taught the ancient Chinese their morals? Who taught the Iroquois Indians, before Columbus? Muslims claim that their morality comes directly from god as written in the Koran. Mormons teach that their morality comes from god as written in the book of Mormon. The Hopi have a well-developed moral and ethical code, but it is not what you or I would recognize. While all of these groups claim that some god gave them their morality, the fact is that no society can live long without rules for successful interaction. No gods gave them these moral rules; tradition and the need to live peacefully within a larger group, brought these about.
​

Edit: We've gone way off the rails on this one.

Religion or not, I think you'll all agree: Fuсk SB719A!

​

So much I drastically disagree with in this one. I'd just say that the enlightenment goal here is fatally flawed, as is the idea of getting morality based on shifting cultural mores. Otherwise we are left with a worldview that can in no way condemn one culture's actions whether it be the holocaust, the rape of Nanking, or Isis today. I mention this because we have so many cultures and subcultures I do not believe you can have a morality by consensus that means anything in a society that has heterogenous ideals.

Your presuppositions in your last quote begs the question on morality in favor of the religion of Atheism. (And fundamentally atheism is a religion which makes positive claims as to knowledge of God or lack thereof) There are multiple possibilities history has accepted. Monotheism and polytheism could both easily provide answers to it.

In the case of some of the men you cite, whether they realized it or not, their religious views provided the moral framework of their views and culture. We have the benefit of distance to be able to see this as their assumptions of what could be taken for granted as properly basic are different. Nietzsche I would cite as a supporting source for this actually. The parable of the madman being perhaps the most familiar. But there are a lot of other indicators I could point out from him, that I think are valid.

We have the outsider perspective, which is something intrinsically impossible to have on one's own era and culture. I find that it is easy to look back and see the moral failings of the past, but find it much harder to find the atrocities of our own era, for our culture desensitizes us to the evils it accepts.

Which is one reason I think liberty and freedom is so critical. We disagree here on our religious worldview I suspect. However, I absolutely support the bill of rights and view our ability to disagree as of critical importance. And the ability to do so civilly, I believe is what our founders had in mind that free men would be capable of doing.

 

[Hang-Man]

Well Said Wombat and Monty, we are on the same page at this point.

 

[Diamondback]

And now the story of Boquist's Betrayal has gone national:
Independence Day? Not in Oregon, as a "Minority Report" Gun Confiscation Bill Moves Along

Jen Van Laar's good people despite being from California, I've known her a while at RS and she's one of us People Of The Gun.

 

[Timbertodd]

Just received this from OFF.

Don't be lighting off those fireworks just yet.

Senate Bill 719, Brian Boquist's gun confiscation bill, has been passed out of the House Rules Committee with NO public hearing and virtually NO notice. We expect this bill to be on the House floor on Wednesday.
This mean spirited and vindictive bill is designed to punish gun owners, pit family members against each other and promote conflict and hatred. All in the name of "compassion" of course.

If passed, this bill will allow a "family member," who may not have seen you in decades, to demand that your rights and your property be confiscated by the police. This "family member" need have no credentials in mental health. The judge who imposes this order against you will be, at best, trained in law, NOT mental health. Remember, there are "judges" in Oregon who believe even cop's guns should be "put on a barge and dropped in the ocean."
The bill also allows any police officer to ask the court to take your rights and property.
Under SB 719, you won't even know there is a court order against you until the police arrive to confiscate your firearms. But it gets even worse.
Not only will they confiscate YOUR firearms, they will have to confiscate the firearms of every member of your household. Think that's crazy? They will also have to confiscate every single knife in your house.
What do you have to do to be subject to one of these confiscation orders?

Well, you and your whole household can lose the right to own kitchen knives because in the last 180 days you bought or "attempted to buy" a firearm or ammunition.
You DON'T have to have committed a crime. You DON'T have to be suicidal. You DON'T have to have hurt anyone.
There is not one single word in the bill that seeks to get help for people who actually are in a mental health crisis. In fact, the Democrats on the committee refused to even discuss an amendment that would have addressed that. Make no mistake, this bill is an expression of pure hatred for gun owners. The fact that one of its sponsors, Senator Brian Boquist, is a Republican who has always courted gun owner's votes makes it all the more appalling.
Under this bill you can lose your gun rights if you have ever had a DUI. (Of course, you don't lose your car.)
If you contest the court's order, they may NOT consider any "mental health diagnosis." So if a mental health professional has concluded you are not mentally ill, the court may not consider that! The bill is the personification of insanity.
The proponents of this bill have blatantly lied about its purpose and its ramifications.
We hate to interrupt the Independence Day celebration, but if we don't stop this awful bill, we will have taken another step down the road to serfdom.
Even if you have taken action before, we need you to double down on your efforts to let the House members know how outrageous, counterproductive, and dangerous this bill is.
Please use this link to take action and reach all members of the Oregon House.

 

[HB of CJ]

Yep, I got the same E-Mail. Heck of a way for an Old Coot to wake up from his nap!

FOLKS. THINGS ARE GETTING VERY SERIOUS HERE. DO WHAT YOU CAN.

Sorry for the shouting.

Respectfully.

 

[Diamondback]

Dear Senator Bullsh*t,

Betrayals like this from people Iike YOU are the reason I LEFT the GOP.

Signed,
P*ssed-Off EX-Republican

 

[N Monty]

Man, this bill is a real stinker. And to push it through without any public hearing over the independence day "weekend" is sick.

Shame on them. I sent an email. Keep up the good work, everyone.

 

[Diamondback]

Hopefully having a Fire Mission called down nationwide will help... #BoycottOregon

 

[nammac]

Man, this bill is a real stinker. And to push it through without any public hearing over the independence day "weekend" is sick.

Shame on them. I sent an email. Keep up the good work, everyone.

Called them out for exactly that, trying to ramrod this through without a public hearing over the 4th of July holiday...

Reminded them they serve at OUR pleasure, and can easily removed from their cushy position.

Let them know how deceptive, underhanded, diabolical and typical Oregon Democrat their behavior is and has been...

Oregon gun owners MUST unite against this attack on our rights!!!

 

[Diamondback]

And make sure to get the word out about #BenedictBoquist--he MUST be Primaried next election.

 

[PiratePast40]

Don't forget, the OFF notification has the easy to use link for a bulk email to every member of the House. There is also a space to enter your own comments if you like. Link here: Votility

 

[Misteramax]

You know guys, I can't stress it enough...delete your Facebook. I'm telling each and every one of you now, technology will only aid them in their witch hunts.

Today at work really made me think: wow... Democrats are truly lost people. As some of you know from other threads I'm currently driving for a job. I see I-5 five days a week. My point is the bubblegum I see each day and then listening to liberals complain about health epidemics; Guns to them obviously being one. It's starting to get under my skin how worthless these bubbleguming people are. Both the politicians and the people who believe their bubblegum. We have a serious problem with cell phones, in general bad driving, speeding and a lot of people killing themselves in traffic way more than suicide by guns. But where the hell are the politicians to help with a real crises!? God damnit this constant attention on guns is getting old.

 

[PiratePast40]

According to this article, http://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...guns-away-dire-situations-advances/449313001/, there was a hearing and both the NRA and OFF were there to testify.

 

[cigars]

So why do the "special cause" folks get to have laws, culture and society bent towards them? How does a "minority" get catered to so often? Well, we are apparently a minority as gun owners and 2A law abiding citizens. When do we get politicians to cater to our cause and why not? This political one way street is getting out of control.