Iran's foreign minister explains international law to Senate Republicans

How isn't it? If I make a law saying all citizens must obey the Ten Commandments, the first one of which is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other Gods before me" you seem indeed to be establishing a State Religion right there.

 

This thread was started to try and make it look like 47 Republican congressmen

were clueless and didn't have the right to write the open letter to Iran.

While the average child knows International law doesn't trump the Constitution,

most liberals seem confused here.

The above is the answer to your last question.

I covered everything else, you may need to read it again.

All your issues were addressed.

 

????? No they didn't.

John Adams
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

John Quincy Adams
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.

Daniel Webster
[T]he Christian religion – its general principles – must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society.

Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens.

Noah Webster
[T]he religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His apostles… This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government.

The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws.

[T]he Christian religion… is the basis, or rather the source, of all genuine freedom in government… I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of Christianity have not a controlling influence.

 

That is how the constitution reads. The intention of the founders was that there be no laws made on the basis of religion and they state this clearly.

Now law that respecting an establishment of religion can easily be read - no law with respect to any religious establishments.

Where there is no doubt is in the fact that the founders meant it to mean and intended that no laws were to be made using some religious text as justification for that law.

No forcing legal observation of religious beliefs.

When you read further it becomes abundantly clear that the founders intended separation of Church and State.

For arguments sake, despite the literal volumes of evidence to the contrary, let us assume that there was no prohibition of religion being involved in making laws and that the first amendment does not exist.

Silence on the issue is not an argument for involving religion in the making of laws.

What then is your argument for religion based laws as it seems that this is what you favor ?

 

Straw-man fallacy. I did not claim that international law trumped the Constitution nor did I claim that the Republicans did not have the right to write an open letter to Iran.

 

Neither Daniel nor Noah Webster were even signatories to the constitution nor are they considered "founding fathers" ? What is up with that ?

Your other quotes are not talking about Law. John Adams is merely stating that the general principles of freedom and equality are also the general principles of Christianity and he is correct.

One of the main principle of classical liberalism which was the cornerstone of the constitution was the Golden Rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do to you".

The Golden Rule also happens to be the foundation/cornerstone of the message of Jesus.

Adams (nor Jesus for that matter) does not believe that people should be forced to obey religious proclamations through law.

While the ideas behind the Constitution shares general principles with Christianity .. it is founded on the natural authority of the people alone without pretence of miracle or mystery


The founders were well aware of the mess created by involving religion directly in state affairs.

Your claim that Adams thought or stated that laws should be made on the basis of religion is just not valid.

 

And when you say "WE", I assume you mean you'll be fighting in the war too right?
Or does your bravery only extend to sending others to die in the name of "might makes right"?

 

I never made any such claim. I was refuting YOUR claim that "According to the founders we are not to make laws on the basis of religion" when they never stated any such thing. Certainly none of your quotes state any such thing.

 

You are confused.

I never said you did.

I was talking about the OP.

 

You are in denial but no worries .... I have more quotes for you

What part of not enforcing legal observation of religion by law is unclear to you ?

Legitimate of Government do not extend to forcing someone to obey laws made on the basis of religion.

The wording of the Treaty of Tripoli was passed by the Senate.

"Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

 

It is true that our discussion diverged from the OP but what you are doing is avoiding the fact that you were wrong in your claim that Walker does not wish to trample on the constitution by forcing his religious beliefs on others though law.

 

I'm not avoiding anything.

I believe in States Rights.

I don't see him pushing his religion on anyone.

I see freedom of choice.

 

I don't think there is any need to clarify the Founders. Nice trick the way you turned the whole phrase around though. Religion is NATURALLY 'involved' in making laws because The People represent a majority of Christianity. This does not mean however, that laws based on Judeo-Christian philosophy are establishing a state church.

 

There is no need to clarify what the founders intended because they clarified what they meant numerous times and in numerous places.

The whole point of enshrining individual rights and freedoms in the constitution is so the majority can not force their will in the minority.

Forcing religious beliefs on people through law is the equivalent of establishing a state church.

Why would you want laws to be made on the basis of religion ? If we were to adopt such a policy which laws would we even use ?

The ridiculous thing about the religious right wanting to force their particular perspective of Christianity on others through law is that these folks do not even understand the message of Christ to begin with.

The message of Christ is based on exactly the same foundation as the classical liberalism and so in reality there should be no argument.

That base is the Golden Rule - do unto others.

As applied to this conversation, simply put - If you do not want others forcing their religious beliefs on you then do not force yours on others.

 

Not we, you are not an American, you are a traitor in the midst. 10k dead is nothing in grand of scheme of things, and a trillion was not lost it was reinvested into Military industrial complex.

- - - Updated - - -

I would make my contribution to the empire.

 

I don't see how that quote from Jefferson makes your point. Building a wall of separation does not mean that the religious public cannot worship in public places. What you seem to be advocating is religious persecution which is what the Founders fled from.

Individual rights does not guarantee that the majority cannot force their will on the minority. For instance, we now have a President I didn't vote for. He is forcing his will upon me because the MAJORITY voted for him.

I didn't say laws were based on religion I said they are based (in the U.S.) on Judeo-Christian PHILOSOPHY.

How is Christianity forced on anyone? We don't have a State church. Which law has established a state church?

No, classic liberalism is based on the message of Christ.

The Golden Rule philosophy is part of Christian philosophy...wherever it came from. So what?

There is no state church in the U.S. No one is forcing religious beliefs on you or anyone else. The fact that the MAJORITY in the U.S. believe in God is their RIGHT.

 

I think?... I sourced that it is like that. It's a fact.

Uh no.. I sourced that the democratically elected Iranian government nationalized the oil companies.

 

Since I my point was never about the religious public worshiping in public places .... I have no clue what you are talking about ?

Individual rights does not guarantee that the majority cannot force their will on the minority. For instance, we now have a President I didn't vote for. He is forcing his will upon me because the MAJORITY voted for him.

No they are not. What on earth is "Judeo-Christian" Philosophy as applied to making law ?

I never said there was a law that established a state church.. What on earth are you talking about ?

Laws made on the basis of what are claimed to be "Christian beliefs" "The Bible" and so on.

No it isn't. The Golden Rule is the product of the theories within classical liberalism. These theories have to do with a derivation of legitimacy of authority for the state. The theory has nothing to do with Jesus.

Jesus did not invent the Golden Rule but it was the foundation of his message. Confucius, Buddha and Hammurabi's law code also have this rule.

So this rule is something that both secularists and should be able to agree on. That's what.

No one said it was not their right to believe in God. You are confusing freedom of religion with freedom from religion.

There is a difference between having a religious belief, and forcing that religious belief on others.

If you do not like alcohol because you think it is "Satan's brew" then do not drink.

The fact of the matter is that Christians all over the nation and religious leaders preaching about "Satan's brew" managed to turn the constitution upside down and pass a law prohibiting alcohol.

Christians continue to try and force their religious beliefs on others by making laws.

Did you not know that when you make a law it gives the state the right to force compliance through coercion and physical violence ?

Getting the state to make a law forces the citizens to comply with that law. If the law is based on religion belief this is forcing religious beliefs on people.

 

Your source doesn't even make the assertion. The 53 coup didn't lead to the shah being "installed". He had been the shah since 1941 when the British and Russians installed him.

 

Enacting laws based upon religion isn't recognizing the establishment of religion. In a democracy, its the will of the people. Whatever their motivation, be it their religion or their sense of what is right or wrong, it doesn't matter.

 

It does...

^^
It states perfectly that the US with the UK overthrew a democratic government, and that the Shah of Iran.. received the power to rule and unleash his reign of American financed terror on Iran. Until Iranians got rid of the American terrorist and the Shah. But you're just unable to understand that getting a title like "Shah of Iran" does not make you the necessary the ruler of Iran.... just like the queen of England does not make her the ruler of England. It just absolutely blows your mind.

 

Your source doesnt make any mention of the Shah being installed. Thats because he was installed in 1941

 

You are like the master Straw-man builder. I have never made any comments about religious public not being able to worship in public places.

I have only stated that laws should not be made on the basis of religion.

Who said there was any guarantee ? and yes .. we now have a President that is trampling on the constitution just like those before him did.

The laws in the US are based on ideas from Classical Liberalism. That some of these folks happed to be Judeo-Christians does not mean that these Philosophies had anything to do with the Christian Religion and in fact they had little to do with the Christian religion. Certainly not the secular formation of the Golden Rule.

I did not say we had a state church that forced Christianity on people. What we have is religious folks who try and make laws based on their religious belief.

The derivation of the Golden Rule in Classical liberalism is not based on the message of Christ.

And good for Christians. Too bad they do not follow the Golden Rue when it comes to forcing their religious beliefs on others.

You seem to have trouble understanding the concept that when a law is made, the State is given the power to force people to obey that law through coercion, fine, imprisonment, physical violence.

If that law is made on the basis of religious belief then the state is forcing people to obey a law based on religious belief.

In this way people are forced to abide by the religious beliefs of others.

 

So. Doesnt matter if it is religion or just a sense of right and wrong that motivates the enactment of laws in the domocratic process. A law against usurious interest rates doesnt become unconstitutional if the democratic process that brought the law into existence is motivated by religion.

 

Seriously......
In my previous post I copy pasted from wikipedia:
Following the coup in 1953, a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi was formed which allowed Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran (Persian for an Iranian king),[9] to effectively rule the country as an absolute monarch.


It specifically states the Shah was given the power to govern as ruler of Iran by the Iranian military in 1953.



Wikipedia mentions:
In 1921, Reza Khan, Prime Minister of Iran and former general of the Persian Cossack Brigade, overthrew the Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. In 1941 he was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after Iran came under British and Russian occupation following the Anglo-Soviet invasion that established the Persian Corridor and would last until 1946.

Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and the Imperial Family, Coronation of the Shah of Iran in 1967.
In 1951 Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.


What you say about Iranian Shah lasted till 1946.The coup in 1953, was cooked up by the US, to thieve the Iranian resources by supporting terror. Hence the Iranians attacked the building where the terror was organised, which was the US embassy. They did that while they got rid of their puppet. In an attempt to get back to Iran, and thieve their resources ones more... the US started to sponsor Saddam Hussein to use WMD's against the Iranian people. That's how the US ends up being the biggest sponsor of terrorism.