Religion in America

Your player is broken, badly. First, after viewing the advert the actual commentary doesn't start, so I have to view the same sappy ad over and over and over before I can actually hear what I want hear. Second, if I try to change move forward or backward the player to a different time the audio becomes unintelligible.

Excerpt from 'What is the Primary Fundamental Right?'

Lawyers today have probably evolved from the clerics of 1500 years ago. For many long years these cleric elites have interpreted and imposed the laws of the 'church' on the lay people. Obviously all laws are originally derived from the supreme power of God's laws which He conveniently passed down as Enlightenment to the leaders of every religion, from Moses to Saint Paul to Mohammad to Siddhartha etc. In Europe possibly by the 15th century, many of these clerics had became the quasi-priest scribes and literates who were, at a price, able to defend those accused of violating His sacred laws.
continued..

Modern politicians are a motley collection of elites or elite's representatives made up from the ancient cabals now called political parties, and their leadership is always made up of lawyers. Everything is still controlled by these clerics and they still use the Laws of God and fear of His punishment to exercise their control over the general population. Therefore possibly all western governments are actually theocracies, virtually the same as the Mullahs government of Iran but without the fancy dress and long beards. Knowing that makes it easier to see what western politicians really are, clerics in business suits.
continued..

If the first proposed 13th Amendment, the "Titles and Nobilities Act" had been passed banning lawyers from becoming politicians then America could have been the first country ever to really have separated church and state, obviously making it a much freer country. Instead the 13th Amendment now in existence actually permits slavery. Probably not until the majority of voters discriminate and vote against anyone with a law degree or strong religious background, are things likely to change. Seeing as most politicians and those seeking election are usually lawyers makes the chance of that happening soon quite remote.

http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/index.php?pageName=pfrWhatIs

FYI: early america was a theocracy ... similar to iran by the way. intolerant to the extent of witch hunts and witch burnings. In fact, the framers of the constitution looked at back at the pilgrims with some disdain. For every Jonathan Edwards there were 10 hidden christian mullahs with a loaded guns and a bull whips.

It was the genius of the USA to separate church and state. ... religion and politics do not mix and the only Christian theocracy that will work is millennium kingdom to come.

Bearing in mind that the UK has no written constitution, but it does have a state religion, I find it interesting that much of religious debate in the US focuses on what the framers of The Constitution intended (or as RR says, what was the plain meaning of the text therein, regardless of intent). And yet - speaking purely as an individual - I felt just as religiously free in the UK as I do here in the US. Perhaps the freedom in the UK is legally more fragile than in the US. But that's a big perhaps.
Meanwhile, and bearing the same difference in mind, it is worth noting that the numbers of US vs UK citizens identifying themselves as Christians (78 vs 71) and 'no religion' (12 vs 15) are fairly close. (Source - Wikipedia).
Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice...

Jill Lepore talks about tolerance but she has a very noticeable intolerance in her voice. Scalia's in Zedner v. United States says that original intent "accustoms us to believing that what is said by a single person in a floor debate or by a committee report represents the view of Congress as a whole—so that we sometimes even will say (when referring to a floor statement and committee report) that “Congress has expressed” thus-and-so... There is no basis either in law or in reality for this naive belief."

Originalism is concerned with the original plain meaning of the text and not at all with what the drafters intended. It's sometimes called textualism or strict constructionism, though they aren't exactly the same thing.

Having said that, many non-lawyers on the right like Glenn Beck do concern themselves with original intent. Since most of the time the drafters do enact what they intend, you reach the same conclusion but there's a fundamental difference in approach. But even the original intenters don't believe the original is always perfect. You won't find many who think we should bring back slavery. Constitution-worship isn't partisan. The right loves the 2nd and 10th amendments. The left loves the 1st and 14th. I'll never forget when I was explaining to someone who was maybe 12 years old what Christians are supposed to believe, she said "But we have freedom of religion!" In her mind, the 1st Amendment was the highest law and God would be in violation of it if he demanded that people follow any particular religion. It's sad really to see the law raised to divine status and the adherents don't even realize it.

Houellebecq on Tocqueville

Atomizing
http://glpiggy.net/2011/12/20/atomizing/