Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: examiner.com - Black is back

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    examiner.com - Black is back

    Subscribe to http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ke-stollenwerk

    DIGG & REDDIT http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i.../black-is-back

    SNIP

    If Black wins the Republican nomination, he will likely face incumbent Senator Mark Herring (D – Loudoun & Fairfax Counties). Senator Herring generally votes against gun rights legislation, such his 2010 Senate floor votes against bills to allow law abiding citizens to carry handguns in alcohol serving restaurants and vehicles.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Excellent!

    The more pro-2A senators the better. Now we need to support his campaign one way or another.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Subscribe to http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ke-stollenwerk

    DIGG & REDDIT http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i.../black-is-back

    SNIP

    If Black wins the Republican nomination, he will likely face incumbent Senator Mark Herring (D – Loudoun & Fairfax Counties). Senator Herring generally votes against gun rights legislation, such his 2010 Senate floor votes against bills to allow law abiding citizens to carry handguns in alcohol serving restaurants and vehicles.
    Mike:

    I find it difficult to understand how you -- probably the most active and successful privacy rights activist in the entire Commonwealth (present company included) -- could be supporting the most anti-privacy activist in the Commonwealth -- for State Senate.

    This is the guy who:

    1) presented his fellow delegates with plastic fetuses in order to get his parental notification bill enacted;

    2) sponsored a bill to prevent unmarried and gay couples from fostering/adopting children on the specious basis that gay couples were more likely to molest their children;

    3) tried to have a play banned from a school in his district cancelled because of a scene in which two male actors kiss;

    4) would impose draconian restrictions on each of our constitutional liberties -- other than the 2nd Amendment -- in a red second.

    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.

    How is one A+ a fit counterbalance against a string of Fs?
    Last edited by The Donkey; 11-30-2010 at 08:14 AM. Reason: I can't spell

  4. #4
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.

    How is one A+ a fit counterbalance against a string of Fs?
    Donkey that is your perverse opinion.

    There is no right for a guidance counselor to take a minor to have a abortion. As a parent we are responsible for our childrens health. With that responsibility comes the RIGHT to have that information about our children before they have medical procedures to be able to best protect our children. (abortion really isn't a medical procedure though just a killing of a baby) Schools won't let my daughter take a tylenol but if you had your way they could kill my grandchild without my knowledge! How perverse is that?

    There is no right for homosexuals to adopt children. When for what ever sad reason children fall into the states hands, the state has the responsibility to find the best home or foster parents for that child.

    Freedom of speech has been abused in this country to mean license to do just about anything. Crucifixes in urine, pornography etc. You would have a childrens produced play advance the homosexual agenda as a freedom but not allow a child to give a speech at graduation thanking God for the blessings he gave him/her. Give me a break!

    The 2A protects all the other "GOD" given rights and is one of the most important issues under attack today. A candidate that is for Life (not abortion/euthenasia) gets my first vote, but a candidate that is for the correct interpretation of the 2A giving the PEOPLE the power to protect Liberty from Tyrrany is just as important because it protects that first RIGHT to LIFE!

    So Donkey my recommendation to you is to rethink your liberal secular humanist agenda and ask God for forgiveness (repent) and believe on His son (Jesus) because without Him you have NO God given rights!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran kimbercarrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    hampton, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    721
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Donkey that is your perverse opinion.

    There is no right for a guidance counselor to take a minor to have a abortion. As a parent we are responsible for our childrens health. With that responsibility comes the RIGHT to have that information about our children before they have medical procedures to be able to best protect our children. (abortion really isn't a medical procedure though just a killing of a baby) Schools won't let my daughter take a tylenol but if you had your way they could kill my grandchild without my knowledge! How perverse is that?

    There is no right for homosexuals to adopt children. When for what ever sad reason children fall into the states hands, the state has the responsibility to find the best home or foster parents for that child.

    Freedom of speech has been abused in this country to mean license to do just about anything. Crucifixes in urine, pornography etc. You would have a childrens produced play advance the homosexual agenda as a freedom but not allow a child to give a speech at graduation thanking God for the blessings he gave him/her. Give me a break!

    The 2A protects all the other "GOD" given rights and is one of the most important issues under attack today. A candidate that is for Life (not abortion/euthenasia) gets my first vote, but a candidate that is for the correct interpretation of the 2A giving the PEOPLE the power to protect Liberty from Tyrrany is just as important because it protects that first RIGHT to LIFE!

    So Donkey my recommendation to you is to rethink your liberal secular humanist agenda and ask God for forgiveness (repent) and believe on His son (Jesus) because without Him you have NO God given rights!
    + 1

  6. #6
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    You owe Black an apology

    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Mike:

    I finled it difficult to understand how you -- probably the most active and successful privacy rights activist in the entire Commonwealth (present company included) -- could be supporting the most anti-privacy activist in the Commonwealth -- for State Senate.

    This is the guy who:


    4) would impose draconian restrictions on each of our constitutional liberties -- other than the 2nd Amendment -- in a red second.

    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.
    Pardon Frees Va. Inmate Serving 70 Years for Robberies

    After 23 years locked up, 11 of them in waist chains and handcuffs, Ollin Crawford -- the longest-serving inmate at the Virginia Correctional Center for Women who never murdered anyone -- headed home. Released yesterday afternoon, she plans to celebrate Easter with her family, including her adult son, who spent only the first seven days of his life with his mother before she was taken from him.

    Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D) told me yesterday that he had signed a pardon for Crawford, who was convicted in 1985 of robbing four Fairfax County banks in an eight-week period, because "she has served enough time for those crimes."

    Crawford, who robbed the banks with a fake grenade, was the first black woman in Virginia to be convicted under the state's three-time loser law, which ruled out parole.

    Kaine said he was "extremely troubled by the allegation" of racial inequity in the two cases.
    Pardon in 'three-time loser' case

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine granted a conditional pardon yesterday to Ollin Renaye Crawford, the first woman barred from parole under Virginia's "three-time loser" law.

    Accompanied by family, friends and supporters, Crawford, 49, walked out of the Virginia Correctional Center for Women in Goochland County shortly before 5 p.m. She had served 23 years in prison for a series of bank robberies while armed with what she said was a grenade hidden in a sock.

    Moments earlier, inmates cheered after she walked out of the prison administration building.

    Her case drew attention from critics who cited it as an example of how the 1982 law has led to disproportionate punishments in some cases.

    She also thanked Del. Algie T. Howell Jr., D-Norfolk, and her longtime lawyer, Richard H. Black, a former Republican state delegate, both of whom were with her as she left the prison.

    Kaine was the fourth governor to consider her request for clemency.

    Had he not acted, she might not have been released until 2021.

    Ollin Renaye Crawford

    "I want to say praise God . . . !"

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Mike:

    I finled it difficult to understand how you -- probably the most active and successful privacy rights activist in the entire Commonwealth (present company included) -- could be supporting the most anti-privacy activist in the Commonwealth -- for State Senate.

    This is the guy who:

    1) presented his fellow delegates with plastic fetuses in order to get his parental notification bill enacted;

    2) sponsored a bill to prevent unmarried and gay couples from fostering/adopting children on the specious basis that gay couples were more likely to molest their children;

    3) tried to have a play banned from a school in his district cancelled because of a scene in which two male actors kiss;

    4) would impose draconian restrictions on each of our constitutional liberties -- other than the 2nd Amendment -- in a red second.

    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.

    How is one A+ a fit counterbalance against a string of Fs?
    Boy...that's rich Donkey. You reached a new low.

    Parents are the ultimate leader of the family. They should be notified. NO EXCEPTIONS!

    Perverts shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near kids!

    Two male actors kissing is an act against nature and God.

    He's looking better all the time to me.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Mike:

    I finled it difficult to understand how you -- probably the most active and successful privacy rights activist in the entire Commonwealth (present company included) -- could be supporting the most anti-privacy activist in the Commonwealth -- for State Senate.

    This is the guy who:

    1) presented his fellow delegates with plastic fetuses in order to get his parental notification bill enacted;

    2) sponsored a bill to prevent unmarried and gay couples from fostering/adopting children on the specious basis that gay couples were more likely to molest their children;

    3) tried to have a play banned from a school in his district cancelled because of a scene in which two male actors kiss;

    4) would impose draconian restrictions on each of our constitutional liberties -- other than the 2nd Amendment -- in a red second.

    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.

    How is one A+ a fit counterbalance against a string of Fs?
    Thank you, Donkey. Appreciate the other side of the coin. I'm not in that district, but still like to know much about people who are good on guns before I decide how to throw my support.

    I think it's a new record. I think it's the second time I've agreed with you. <grin>

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Mike:

    I finled it difficult to understand how you -- probably the most active and successful privacy rights activist in the entire Commonwealth (present company included) -- could be supporting the most anti-privacy activist in the Commonwealth -- for State Senate.

    This is the guy who:

    1) presented his fellow delegates with plastic fetuses in order to get his parental notification bill enacted;

    2) sponsored a bill to prevent unmarried and gay couples from fostering/adopting children on the specious basis that gay couples were more likely to molest their children;

    3) tried to have a play banned from a school in his district cancelled because of a scene in which two male actors kiss;

    4) would impose draconian restrictions on each of our constitutional liberties -- other than the 2nd Amendment -- in a red second.

    I realize that the guy is good on guns, but guns are only a part of the liberties/rights picture.

    How is one A+ a fit counterbalance against a string of Fs?
    I oppose Black on at least two of the three specific items you mention, but they're not privacy issues. You might suggest that parental notification before abortion is a privacy issue, but only in fact it's in line with laws requiring parental consent before any medical treatment. If a minor can't get a tattoo, or can't get her ears pierced without parental consent, why should she be able to undergo a dangerous and invasive medical procedure without at least parental notification, if not consent?

    He's just flat wrong on gay adoptions, of course.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    This is a LONG WAY from being about Open Carry now...
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Donkey that is your perverse opinion.

    There is no right for a guidance counselor to take a minor to have a abortion. As a parent we are responsible for our childrens health. With that responsibility comes the RIGHT to have that information about our children before they have medical procedures to be able to best protect our children. (abortion really isn't a medical procedure though just a killing of a baby) Schools won't let my daughter take a tylenol but if you had your way they could kill my grandchild without my knowledge! How perverse is that?
    My "perverse" opinion is based on my interactions with 16 and 17 year old girls who sometimes are required to make the most consequential decisions in their young lives as a result of an unwanted pregnancy.

    Sometimes these kids benefit from their parents active, supportive participation with them in making these decisions.

    In other cases though, the pressures parents put on their kids in these situations are horrible.

    You are entitled to your opinion: I have little doubt that it is well grounded in your core values and faith.

    But given your comment about schools killing your grandchildren without your knowledge, I suspect strongly that you are one of those parents who would unduly pressure your daughters in this situation.

    In other words, you are one of those parents who graphically illustrate why children's privacy rights in regard to certain private decisions they make that may affect their health, lives and futures ought to be protected.

    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    There is no right for homosexuals to adopt children. When for what ever sad reason children fall into the states hands, the state has the responsibility to find the best home or foster parents for that child.
    I agree that neither homosexuals, nor anyone else, have any "right" to adopt children. But that does not mean that the government should be required to discriminate against gay couples and straight unmarried couples for the most specious of reasons in finding a good home for these kids.

    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    Freedom of speech has been abused in this country to mean license to do just about anything. Crucifixes in urine, pornography etc. You would have a childrens produced play advance the homosexual agenda as a freedom but not allow a child to give a speech at graduation thanking God for the blessings he gave him/her. Give me a break!
    You are mistaken in your assumptions about what I believe: the kids should have the freedom to put on their play AND the child should be allowed to give a graduation speech thanking God.

    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    The 2A protects all the other "GOD" given rights and is one of the most important issues under attack today. A candidate that is for Life (not abortion/euthenasia) gets my first vote, but a candidate that is for the correct interpretation of the 2A giving the PEOPLE the power to protect Liberty from Tyrrany is just as important because it protects that first RIGHT to LIFE!
    I infer from your statement that all of these rights are "GOD" given that in your view, your own beliefs about God should trump others' individual rights in some way. That is not what the founders of this great nation believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    So Donkey my recommendation to you is to rethink your liberal secular humanist agenda and ask God for forgiveness (repent) and believe on His son (Jesus) because without Him you have NO God given rights!
    Thank you very much for your concerns about my immortal soul. In other forums, I actively explore and debate the meaning of Christian scriptures, and I am very interested in them.

    If you want to take that kind of discussion off line, that would be fine with me.

    The fact is, however, that I am a Jew.

    Do you have any problems with that?
    Last edited by The Donkey; 11-30-2010 at 08:45 AM.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Pardon Frees Va. Inmate Serving 70 Years for Robberies



    Pardon in 'three-time loser' case




    Ollin Renaye Crawford

    "I want to say praise God . . . !"
    Of course, I approve wholeheartedly of some of the work that former Delegate Black has done as an attorney in private practice.

    I disagree, however, that I owe him an apology.

    It is a shame that Delegate Black did not -- and will not -- bring the same broad-mindedness he showed when he agreed to take on Ollin Renaye Crawford's case with him to the General Assembly.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    My "perverse" opinion is based on my interactions with 16 and 17 year old girls who sometimes are required to make the most consequential decisions in their young lives as a result of an unwanted pregnancy.
    <snip>
    In other words, you are one of those parents who graphically illustrate why children's privacy rights in regard to certain private decisions they make that may affect their health, lives and futures ought to be protected.


    Sixteen and Seventeen year-olds are still children. The abortion industry thrives on mis-information or witholding information and children do NOT have all the information they need to make a responsible life and death decision. Even if they had all the information such as infertility rates of women having abortions, breast cancer risks, mental trauma of the women for the rest of their lives, etc they are still children. 80% of women that see an ultrasound of their child choose not to abort. Why? Because they see for themselves arms and legs and eyelids and a BEATING heart and the lie of planned parenthood that it's just a blob of cells is instantly discredited. I saw a statistic of something like 98% of abortions are done for convenience rather than medical need, rape or incest. That is about a million babies a year that are killed so they can live the fun life!

    Getting pregnant has consequences and responsibilities. Children are thrown into a culture that says just get rid of it (one which I grew up and didn't think much about as a kid even though I was brought up Catholic). If one of my two daughters gets pregnant I will first of all forgive her and help her either bring the child to full term for adoption or help her take care of it as my grandchild. I greatly prefer the second option. If I find out my daughter has already had an abortion I would be furious but would quickly forgive her and try to explain why I was furious.

    Yes there are always corner cases and things outside of control but for 98% of the abortions done in this country there must be a better way. By a better way I prefer abstinance over condoms over RU486 etc. I was once a hormone laden teenager and made my own mistakes. I fully expect future generations will gleen only partial wisdom from whatever we try to empart to them but we must try.

    So yes kids lives, futures ought to be protected, by their parents and our experience! There is no right to privacy like the Supreme Court errantly decided in Roe vs Wade. Even that decision stated if assumptions of the fetus being an unfeeling blob of cells is wrong the whole argument falls apart. Current technology proved that wrong a long time ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I agree that neither homosexuals, nor anyone else, have any "right" to adopt children. But that does not mean that the government should be required to discriminate against gay couples and straight unmarried couples for the most specious of reasons in finding a good home for these kids.

    You are mistaken in your assumptions about what I believe: the kids should have the freedom to put on their play AND the child should be allowed to give a graduation speech thanking God.


    The government not only "should" discriminate against bad environments we fully expect and require it to. We wouldn't want the government placing foster kids in drug abusers or alcoholics homes. With out going into the negative medical trappings of the homosexual lifestyle, the government is for the good of society and that good included procreation. A husband and wife provide the best role models for kids.

    The whole homosexual agenda is about getting society to consider their choice and lifestyle normal. It isn't. It is a sin just like adultery and we are to hate the sin and love the sinner. I am in no way for persecuting or promoting any physical harm to homosexual people. There are people that have come out of the lifestyle. (another suppressed fact that you won't find in the liberal press)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I infer from your statement that all of these rights are "GOD" given that in your view, your own beliefs about God should trump others' individual rights in some way. That is not what the founders of this great nation believed.
    Thank you very much for your concerns about my immortal soul. In other forums, I actively explore and debate the meaning of Christian scriptures, and I am very interested in them.
    If you want to take that kind of discussion off line, that would be fine with me.
    The fact is, however, that I am a Jew.
    Do you have any problems with that?


    The founders of this country were Christian and preferred that Christian leaders were to be elected. The bible is the most cited document used in the creation of our government and the constitution. The bible says that a baby in the womb is a life and punishment for killing that life is the same as killing a born-person. It states that homosexuality is an abomination. You would think that if the founders disagreed with the Bible that they would have listed some specific laws countering it. Contrarily many states had sodomy laws as well as laws that protected the unborn (anti-abortion, punishment for two murders if a person killed a pregnant woman). Just as our rights come from God so do our laws (at least when they line up with the bible). God doesn't change. He is just.

    By the way your Jewish Torah states the same thing I mentioned above.

    As far as being a Jew, I don't have a problem with that. There are many liberal jewish people that voted for the Obamanation sitting in the white house. I would think that jewish people would be more attracted to the conservative movement but go figure.
    The jews have been waiting for a Messiah and rejected Jesus when he came the first time. Their problem was that they couldn't properly interpret the Torah to see that He would come twice. The first time as a suffering servant and the second as a conquering king. They wanted the latter and were looking for it especially under Roman control. By rejecting their Messiah, God allowed the gentiles to be saved during the Age of Grace (thank you God). During this age the jewish people are partially blinded and at the coming of Jesus the second time their blindness will be removed and they will mourn their killing of Jesus as for the death of a firstborn child. So in the end most jews will somewhat become Christians because they will recognize their Messiah. I guess you could still call them jewish because they will have their Messiah (Jesus) but the offering/sacrifice system will be obsolete because Jesus provided the final/utlimate offering (himself).

    While this has gone way off topic as far as OCing. I will support any politician that supports (in deeds/votes) Christianity and Christian principles that have made this a free country. Too many politicians pay lip service to Christianity to get elected then don't practice it. (Obama) But freedom isn't free. It requires vigillance and sacrifice.

    Donkey, if you have any questions you can PM me too. :-)

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    45-

    It probably comes as little surprise to you that I disagree with all of your above conclusions, and also do not agree with much of the reasoning that you use to get where you end up. I will address your assertions where they are pertinent to Constitutional interpretion, and through that, to 2A related issues

    On the one hand, I do agree with you that most of our Founders were quite aware of the Bible, and that this influenced them in how they conceptualized some parts of our founding documents. I have been impressed, in particular, by the extent to which the descriptions of the rights of Roman citizens in Acts have made their way into some of these founding documents, and have contended that these descriptions might be useful in ferreting out what the framers intended when they enumerated certain rights.

    I suspect that many conservative jurists would disagree with the use of this perfectly reasonable source to aid in the process constitutional analysis for many of the same reasons that they get all worked up about the use of foreign law.

    You say:

    "The founders of this country were Christian and preferred that Christian leaders were to be elected. The bible is the most cited document used in the creation of our government and the constitution. . . .You would think that if the founders disagreed with the Bible that they would have listed some specific laws countering it.
    I am aware of nothing at all supporting these assertions. But the founders did make a rather important point about the place of religion and christianity in our Constitutional scheme when they enacted the First Amendment's establishment clause, and its free exercise clause.

    One of the few times in Thomas Jefferson’s personal letters where he discusses religions other than Judaism and Christianity is in reference to Islam and he seemingly views its violence and corruption as being on par with Christianity’s. From his September 27, 1809 letter to James Fishback:

    "It is time then to become sensible how insoluble these questions are by minds like ours, how unimportant, and how mischievous; and to consign them to the sleep of death, never to be awakened from it. … We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions."
    This does not suggest to me that Jefferson thought that the Christian take on moral questions was inherently superior to those of other religions.

    In fact, the only trouble that I would have in refuting your claims is a lack of the desire to type that much. I will pick on James Madison, for the moment, because he is one of my personal favorites, and because he was more responsible for the Second Amendment and for other things that ended up in the Bill of Rights than many of the others. He wrote:

    Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
    -- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822 (more complete excerpt given below)

    And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
    -- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, in Saul K Padover, ed, The Complete Madison: His Basic Writings (1953), also; from Jack N Rakove, ed, James Madison: Writings, (1999), p. 789, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
    -- James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion"

    Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J M on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
    -- James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 (October, 1946) p. 555. The parenthetical note at the end, which lacks a closed parenthesis in Fleet, was apparently a note Madison made to himself regarding examples of improper encroachment to use when the "Detatched Memoranda" were edited and published, and seems to imply clearly that Madison supported taxing churches. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church."

    I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others.
    -- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams, in Robert L Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom (1987) p. 39, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth "that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.
    -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

    Conscience is the most sacred of all property.
    -- James Madison, National Gazette, March 29, 1792, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal ecclesiastics already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?
    -- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, quoted from Gene Garman, "Your Questions Answered"

    What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.
    -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

    Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.
    -- James Madison, letter to Bradford, January 1774, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
    -- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
    -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

    Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
    -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

    Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
    -- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, June 20, 1785

    That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such a business.
    -- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, January 24, 1774, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect ... Equal laws, protecting equal rights, are found, as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony, and most favorable to the advancement of truth.
    -- James Madison, letter to Dr. De La Motta, August 1820 (Madison, 1865, III, pages 178-179), quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

    [T]he bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment...." This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration.
    -- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to incorporate the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.
    -- James Madison, veto message, February 21, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill to fund "pious charity" organized by the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, saying that a project comparable to the modern "Charitible Choice" scheme of the George W Bush administration gives religious societies legal agency in performing a public and civil duty

    Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land in the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and a precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."
    -- James Madison, veto message, February 28, 1811. Madison vetoed a bill granting public lands to a Baptist Church in Mississippi Territory. Quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom. Also in Gaillard Hunt, The Writings of James Madison, Vol. 8, (1908), p. 133.

    Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.
    -- James Madison, explaining to Congress during the House Debate what the First Amendment means to him, 1 Annals of Congress 730 (August 15, 1789), That his conception of "establishment" was quite broad is revealed in his veto as President in 1811 of a bill which in granting land reserved a parcel for a Baptist Church in Salem, Mississippi (directly above this entry)

    Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there can ot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
    -- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June, 1778, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

    In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.
    -- James Madison, from Number 51 of the Federalist Papers, quoted in James A Henretta, The Evolution of American Society, 1700-1815: An Interdisciplinary Analysis (1973) p. 136, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
    -- James Madison, letter to Robert Walsh written "late in his life," in Robert L Maddox, Separation of Church and State: Guarantor of Religious Freedom (1987) p. 39, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    And may I not be allowed to ... read in the character of the American people, in their devotion to true liberty and to the Constitution which is its palladium [protection], ... a Government which watches over ... the equal interdict [prohibition] against encroachments and compacts between religion and the state.
    -- James Madison, 1816, Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1: 579, quoted from Gene Garman, "Essays In Addition to America's Real Religion"

    Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U S forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?
    -- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies" unpublished until 1946, cited in Brant, Irving, The Bill of Rights, 1965, from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

    Here [in the Virginia statute for religious liberty] the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty; its principle the great barrier agst [against] usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices, at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human.
    -- James Madison, "Monopolies. Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments," as reprinted in Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detatched Memoranda," William & Mary Quarterly, Third series: Vol. III, No. 4 (October, 1946), pp. 554-55. The "Detatched Memoranda" is a manuscript, written sometime after Madison left office in 1817, in Madison's own hand, with notes he made in preparation for the arrangement and publication of his public papers, a task he did not complete before his death in 1836. Quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church."

    Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.
    The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.
    The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the US
    -- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, from the "Detached Memoranda," Elizabeth Fleet, "Madison's Detached Memoranda." William and Mary Quarterly (1946): 554-62. Quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom.

    Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.
    -- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788, from Michael Kammen, The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History (1986) pp. 369-70, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

    I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principal with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done maybe to apply to the constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curant.
    -- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, Madison's Writings, Vol. 3, p. 274; from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents: From Washington to FDR, p. 90, quoted from Freethought Web, "The Words of Our American Founding Fathers"

    I have received your letter of the 6th, with the eloquent discourse delivered at the consecration of the Jewish Synagogue. Having ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions and worship as equally belonging to every sect, and the secure enjoyment of it as the best human provision for bringing all either into the same way of thinking, or into that mutual charity which is the only substitute, I observe with pleasure the view you give of the spirit in which your sect partake of the blessings offered by our Government and laws.
    -- James Madison, letter to M M Noah, May 15, 1818 (Madison, 1865, III, page 97), quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

    Whilst I was honored with the Executive Trust I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere designations of a day, on which all who thought proper might unite in consecrating it to religious purposes according to their own faith & forms.... Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries ... in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov[ernment] & Religion neither can be duly supported.... Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance.
    -- James Madison, explaining why he recommended that those who are predisposed to pray should pray during the crisis of the [] war (1822), quoted from Gene Garman, "Your Questions Answered"

    "The difficulty of reconciling the Xn [Christian] mind to the absence of a religious tuition from a University established by law and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurous to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and without a toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source itself of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are support by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware NJ, &c, has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion.
    -- James Madison, letter to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823; from Jack N Rakove, ed, James Madison: Writings, (1999), p. 796, quoted from Freethought Web, "The Words of Our American Founding Fathers"
    See what I mean?

    So, to the extent that you are making a legal claim about what the framers intended, as opposed to a religious claim about what you think God wants, I think that you have it wrong.

    And to the extent that former Delegate Black reflects the views you express about the proper place of Christianity vis-a-vis what the framers intended, he has got it wrong too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •